|
Lucienne -> RE: Bettering yourself for others (12/22/2009 2:08:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucienne
Just because you're getting nothing out of it doesn't mean there's nothing to get.
::drums fingers lightly on desk::
Here's something you don't know about me: I've yet to fail to achieve 100% on a reading comprehension test. In my life. I have a perfect score on the English portion of the SATs. I have always been a honors English student, have always achieved perfect grades in English, and am currently a professional writer. I am extremely confident in my reading skills.
I'd already caught on that you're extremely confident in your reading skills. Your demonstration of those skills here has not matched your confidence level.
Let's go a little meta with this and analyze the things you did just tell me about yourself. You are a 33 year old man who just recited his SAT score on an internet forum. In an arena with numerous opportunities to demonstrate good reading comprehension, you felt it necessary to haul out and dust off a 15 year-old credential that is a relative measure of the skills of 17 year-olds. Not satisfied with that, you inform us that you were not merely an honor student, but an honor student with perfect grades in English. (And you previously mentioned your CJ major, so just how advanced those English studies were is questionable). This tells me that you are a person who believes that credentials are important and/or impressive, but that you don't actually have very good credentials.
The professional writer bit... let's just say that I don't consider the label "professional writer" to be any sort of guaranty as to the quality of writing.
quote:
If you want to convince me that there is meaning in that silly girl's post, then you're going to have to do more than just say it is so. Demonstrate it to me, and demonstrate in a way that shows it's not simply you looking a blotch of letters and pulling meaning from it like one does when one sees a butterfly in a Rorschach test.
A better reader wouldn't assume that convincing you is my goal.
quote:
quote:
You seem to have a firmly established construct in your mind of what a dom is, what a sub is, and how they relate. That's a lovely thing to have in terms of finding a compatible partner. But it's a foolish thing to attempt to universalize. Your way of looking at it is not the only reasonable way. What you say about subs is true of some subs, but I don't know where you got the impression it is true of almost all subs to the point that someone who disagrees with it is not a sub. You seem to be fiercely clinging to a syllogism that is neither valid or sound.
What syllogism is that?
I am (lazily) trying to determine that. I can hear your wheels cranking and screaming out for lubricant, but you're making too much noise otherwise to locate the fundamental problem. I haven't lost hope, though. I'm pretty good at discerning signal through noise.
quote:
As for the rest of your comment: If you are happy with vague and unclear terms with cloudy definitions that are open to wide interpretation, then you may feel free to use them however you want. Don't come crying to me when you find yourself no longer able to say anything meaningful because you have nullified the very values of the words you are using.
I'm very sympathetic to concerns about semantic drift. But just because you've got firm (intractable) definitions doesn't mean those definitions accurately describe reality. As I stated before, I don't see the benefit of having strict definitions of "dominant" and "submissive" in a bdsm context. Should we get the FTC involved? Pass "truth in labeling" laws? What is the benefit of adhering to your definitions? And who wants to take on the tedious position of "properly" labeling everyone else under the bdsm umbrella?
quote:
Clarity of purpose and meaning increases the potential for meaningful communication.
Why, yes, it does. You have very clearly communicated what you expect a submissive to be. You have also communicated the purpose of getting others to adhere to your ideal so that only those you consider submissive will label themselves as such. The meaningful communication in return has consisted of "tough titties."
quote:
It does, however, require occasionally smacking poor learners over the hand with a ruler and correcting their language.
No, it really doesn't. Doing so is more often entertaining than it is educational.
quote:
It is vogue to pretend that we are being open-minded and more reasonable when we allow people to define their own terms, but the reality is this only does everyone a disservice.
I'm not fond of people defining their own terms in general. I love my OED and refer to it regularly. But in this case, we are talking about intimate relationships. It's not a cookie-cutter world and I see no reason to force people into cookie-cutter labels when it comes to defining and establishing their most personal relationships. Do you object to the term "kinky" unless it refers to acts that you are specifically interested in? It's just a general marker. A heads-up; please inquire for further details.
The community, to the extent that it exists, not adhering to your definition of submissive does a disservice to you because you're forced to sort through all the self-identified submissives who don't match your definition. But you are not the world. (pun very much intended)
quote:
The notion that a submissive is defined by whomever calls themself a submissive is as ridiculous as the idea that anyone who calls themself a writer is a writer (a serious pet peeve of mine), and the end result can always only be that the term submissibe becomes meaningless.
Not entire meaningless. There's a great deal of self-selection going on here. I also have terrible news for you... anyone can call themselves a writer, as long as they write. Most recreational writers wouldn't do so, but the unmodified term "writer" is pretty easy to claim by the book. (pun not intended)
quote:
Finally, I'd ask you if you're arguing with me because you actually think I'm wrong, or if it's because you just don't like the way I express myself.
I've made an effort to separate the parts of your posts that I agree with from the parts that I disagree with. As already stated, I find the way you express yourself pretty entertaining. Not admirable or impressive, but entertaining. I assure you that (hmmm.... eyeballing it) 90% of my critique in that regard remains unstated.
quote:
I get a sense it's the latter. If that's the case, you should recognize that is always a losing position to argue from.
Just curious, do you spend much time interacting with people you consider your intellectual equals or superiors?
|
|
|
|
