RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

DarwinsLilHelper -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/12/2010 11:41:59 PM)

I'm a great believer in Evolution Psychology.

At the most basic level. You can find all the same motivations walking into a biker bar at 11PM as you would have found in a cave in Central Europe a quarter of a million years ago.

The only difference is safer booze and a electric Juke box. All the rest of the wiring in peoples heads is the same. Clothing, Cars, Airplanes, Computers have all sprung up in the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of human evolution. far to little a time for any of that bad wiring to have evolved out of us.

I don't identify myself so much as a Kinkster, or a Bdsm leather man or a Bisexual switch, but rather as a Sapiosexual.

Sapiosexuality being, finding ones self sexually aroused by intelligence and of course, the only really intelligent people are the ones who have mastered the prehistoric wiring in their heads and can predict the actions of others by understanding the prehistoric wiring that motivates them to action.



subtee -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/12/2010 11:56:15 PM)

which, even allowing for whatever logic has brought you to these conclusions, does not preclude any political or other demographic from being dominant.



gungadin09 -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 10:54:59 AM)

i'm on the fence with this one. On the one hand, i believe that human beings are animals; that "civilization" is a joke. Our ideals and ability to reason are so fragile that they break down at the slightest little glitch. Someone starts a thread about mind control, for example, and everyone jumps on him like they're out for blood. Okay, the guy was a pompous jerk. But people were taking shots at Him right off the bat, before He had time to say anything jerky. It seemed like people were waiting for an excuse to pounce; like deep down they really just wanted to. Virtually everyone personally attacked the OP instead of responding to His ideas. There is a way to be honest and say that you don't believe that He's capable of mind control without mocking, calling Him names, and basically trying to humiliate Him. It was painful to watch; like seeing someone get bullied on a playground. Like seeing a pack of dogs rip out the throat of the weaker one.

On the other hand, there's something refreshing about that kind of honesty. If we're all just animals, maybe we should just pony up and admit it, instead of pretending to be cilivized. For example, my comment to the OP about how "earnest" he was and how i believed he was responsible and had a conscience-- that was complete bullshit. i regretted writing it almost immediately, because i could see how hypocritical it was. Basically, i was reacting to the other posters' hostility. They were ganging up on Him, so i wanted to defend Him, or at least make a point of being polite. But i went too far, and ended up by being insincere and dishonest myself.

So, which is better? Civilized insincerity or primal hostility?

pam



TheRaptorJesus -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 11:58:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

I am indeed among the fittest!


AMONG but not THE fittest.

/Does a raptor strut.



popeye1250 -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 12:38:01 PM)

Freud had a lot of "theories." He was also a cocaine addict for quite a while.



DesFIP -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 2:23:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Okay, the guy was a pompous jerk. But people were taking shots at Him right off the bat, before He had time to say anything jerky.

pam


I disagree. He was a pompous jerk, condescending in his op. Which is comparable to sitting at a stool at the local bar, chatting to my friends when some stranger walks up and sneers at the chicken fingers I'm eating and proceeds to tell me there's a much better restaurant on the other side of town but for my own good he won't tell me the name or anything that's on the menu.

And that is not how you win friends and influence enemies. Quite the opposite. He was rude from the get-go and reaped what he sowed.



gungadin09 -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 5:01:20 PM)

Maybe i should rephrase this. Let's say Freud is beside the question. Let's say the Mind Control thread is beside the question. Raise your hands if you believe that people (ALL people, Doms, subs, whatever...) have an inborn need to be cruel sometimes, simply because they enjoy doing it. (gungadin raises her hand). Now, raise your hands if you think that the opposite is true; that most people do not NEED to be cruel without a reason. (gungadin pauses to count the hands...) i'm not talking about BDSM here, i'm talking about life in general.

i'm really interested in this. Over the years i've seen countless acts of what seemed to be unnecessary cruelty. Or, maybe, "cruel" is the wrong word. Maybe "immature", and "spiteful", and "unfair" would be nearer the truth. People seem to think that if their feelings are hurt, or if they just don't like someone, that that entitles them to behave in absolutely any way that they like. That's what i mean when i say the dog eat dog mentality. People see that someone is down, and they just attack, en masse. Let me give an example:

A while ago, i was working at this coffeehouse where the managers were mostly college students who were really irresponsible. i worked the opening shift, which was difficult because i would come in to a store that was completely trashed- the night crew has never "closed" it. The trash was full, the dishes were dirty, the espresso machine was never cleaned, etc. i let it go for a long time, hoping that the general manager would do something about it, but she never did. Finally, i wrote the management a note about it. (We had a notebook for that sort of thing). I was diplomatic (in my opinion...) but basically stated that it was impossible for me to get my work done when there were so many things left unfinished from the night before. i made a list of the things that weren't being done. i was polite and fair (again, in my own opinion); i didn't point fingers at anyone, become rude or emotional, or make it into a personal attack. i simply stated what was already obvious- that the closing procedures were not being done, and that it was affecting the opening shift the next morning.

They hated me for it. People stopped talking to me altogether, and started talking about me behind my back. Not only did the closes not get better, but they got worse, as if for spite. The managers started making me do work that was clearly not my responsibility. Etc. This went on until somebody else did something they didn't like, and then THEY became the new target for viciousness. It was always like that. There was always somebody who was the store's little bitch for the moment; the one on which everyone else took out all their aggressions. i have had many jobs that were like this.

i believe that ALL people are inherently viscious and immature. i believe that however hard we pretend to be civilized human beings with a conscience, that the viscious thing just lies in wait, springing forth at the slightest provocation. Would anyone like to disagree with me?

pam



Jeffff -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 5:10:20 PM)

There is a difference between what happens at work and what happens at play.

Why should the morning shift suffer because some asshole isn't doing his or her job?

The reaction you got was punk-ass. I would have fired them.

As for the rest, if someone seems to DEMAND mocking, who am I to say no? Maybe it is mean, maybe it's not, but it IS funny.

If I may turn your question sideways a bit. Do you think people have the need to be pompous and stupid? Do you think people have the right to that?

If not, do you think it is your job to make every knucklehead feel better about themselves?

I do not.



Edited to add, I am a manager by profession. I don't need or want a "bitch". What I need is cooperation. To quote a wise man, "This ain't no fuckin' hobby"



BentUnit -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 5:27:25 PM)

I get STRESS from suppressing my inborn desire to deliver bloody and painful death on pinhead drivers, arseholish Ex's and lawyers.



laurell3 -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 5:35:03 PM)

I think it's quite possible that because you are new to the forums you see the trees and not the forest. You also seem to not know the history or really the subject matter that people are referring to that causes reactions. That's fine, we were all there once. I don't have a NEED to be cruel. I also don't see cruelty as you do, it's evident many here don't either. Cruelty is not feeding a starving child. Guffawing at someone that suggests a completely illogical and half-baked theory in a condescending manner suggestive of an internet stereotype that is dismissive of people based on role on a forum where intellectual discourse is coveted, is not.

You often have these work stories and it seems to be an ongoing theme with you. We're not them. This isn't real life, and 99.9% of the time responses are not personal (except in politics and religion...if you want to REALLY see reaction...go there and check it out). The fact that you seem to want to make it a personal attack isn't really coming from us.



juliaoceania -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 6:41:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

I am indeed among the fittest!


AMONG but not THE fittest.

/Does a raptor strut.




Your kind is extinct... nuff said...lol



DarwinsLilHelper -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 6:45:15 PM)

I think the Coffee Barista, who thinks the last shift not taking out the trash and talking behind her back is cruelty is a prime example of the over protected, prissy, bohemian American woman who has NEVER ever been exposed to REAL CRUELTY in her life. Your average American Emo woman, Who's always stuck close to younger, liberal academia found around college campuses, because no matter what she does this group will never judge her or tell her to "grow the fuck up", quite trying to pull off the goth look, drop the Code Pink protest sign and quite trying to suck up entitlement money by playing the role of the professional VICTIM.

This sort of Female American Professional Victim has absolutely no frame of reference as to what REAL ANIMAL CRUELTY or ANIMAL VIOLENCE is. She has to call some Nancy Pelosi cruelty hotline to ask questions about whether her Dom not turning over half his paycheck to here constitutes Emotional or Financial cruelty.

This is why Liberal Subs have no real judgment about who is actually dominant and who's not. Which is why you find so many of them hooked up to sniveling, cowardly, liberal cunt Doms, that couldn't dominate a six year old in real life. These Progressive, Metrosexual, Cunt Dom's just show these poor goggle eyed subs their collection of Lord of the Rings Collectors Plastic Swords and a couple of Ninja throwing stars and this type of lib sub hits her knees. Because She's never been in REAL DANGER, where she might need REAL protection and someone that might have to ACTUALLY DOMINATE THEIR ENVIRONMENT with weapons not obtained for $50.00 or less at the local flea market.

See...Now we've proved not only that Liberal Dom's are Spineless, Sniveling Cunts unable to Dominate anything... But also that the Subs that choose this sort of Dom are totally incapable of recognizing the sort of dangers that should lead them in a search for dominance in the first place. Traditionally, though out history Submissive women have sought out dominant men for the safety they provide in a cruel world. Safety that Cowardly, Wet their pants at the first hint of real danger, Liberal Disney Dom's can't provide.

[:D] AhhhhHaHaHa...Wheeee I've been here 3 days and I'm already as popular with the non-dominant liberal wuss puss segment of the site as Courtney Love at a meeting of the Taliban High Command...Luckily All Liberal Posters here are anti war cowardy cunts who've never seen the Taliban.






juliaoceania -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 6:50:41 PM)

Wow dude...


You post like a wannabe Walker, Texas Ranger.... You really are a walking fucking cliche....



BentUnit -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 6:52:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarwinsLilHelper

I think the Coffee Barista, who thinks the last shift not taking out the trash and talking behind her back is cruelty is a prime example of the over protected, prissy, bohemian American woman who has NEVER ever been exposed to REAL CRUELTY in her life. Your average American Emo woman, Who's always stuck close to younger, liberal academia found around college campuses, because no matter what she does this group will never judge her or tell her to "grow the fuck up", quite trying to pull off the goth look, drop the Code Pink protest sign and quite trying to suck up entitlement money by playing the role of the professional VICTIM.

This sort of Female American Professional Victim has absolutely no frame of reference as to what REAL ANIMAL CRUELTY or ANIMAL VIOLENCE is. She has to call some Nancy Pelosi cruelty hotline to ask questions about whether her Dom not turning over half his paycheck to here constitutes Emotional or Financial cruelty.

This is why Liberal Subs have no real judgment about who is actually dominant and who's not. Which is why you find so many of them hooked up to sniveling, cowardly, liberal cunt Doms, that couldn't dominate a six year old in real life. These Progressive, Metrosexual, Cunt Dom's just show these poor goggle eyed subs their collection of Lord of the Rings Collectors Plastic Swords and a couple of Ninja throwing stars and this type of lib sub hits her knees. Because She's never been in REAL DANGER, where she might need REAL protection and someone that might have to ACTUALLY DOMINATE THEIR ENVIRONMENT with weapons not obtained for $50.00 or less at the local flea market.

See...Now we've proved not only that Liberal Dom's are Spineless, Sniveling Cunts unable to Dominate anything... But also that the Subs that choose this sort of Dom are totally incapable of recognizing the sort of dangers that should lead them in a search for dominance in the first place. Traditionally, though out history Submissive women have sought out dominant men for the safety they provide in a cruel world. Safety that Cowardly, Wet their pants at the first hint of real danger, Liberal Disney Dom's can't provide.

[:D] AhhhhHaHaHa...Wheeee I've been here 3 days and I'm already as popular with the non-dominant liberal wuss puss segment of the site as Courtney Love at a meeting of the Taliban High Command...Luckily All Liberal Posters here are anti war cowardy cunts who've never seen the Taliban.






WTF!!!

No more Codeine with a Red Bull chaser for you.
The Politics sub forum is three doors down.

Thanks.



laurell3 -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 6:54:08 PM)

Points....that's what I mean about politics and religion....the stuff you are reacting to OP ain't nothing.....





MED CHECK! AISLE 5!



gungadin09 -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 7:26:46 PM)

Let's forget the forums, for a minute. Let's forget that this is happening on a BDSM website. Let's pretend that the situation were happening in real life. Let's say: someone walked into a bar, insulted your chicken wings in a condescending way, told you that there's a way better restaurant down the street but he can't tell you where, acted superior, looked down on you, and in general, made a complete ass of himself. Let's say, he's way out of line, and everybody knows it. He's basically asking for it. What do you do?

A. get everybody in the bar to go over to his table and start mocking him and insulting him, each taking shots at him, until finally he gets so angry and fed up that he eventually leaves
---OR---
B. ignore him because he's obviously an idiot, and go on drinking your beer in peace

i would choose "B". Not because he doesn't deserve to be taken down a peg (he obviously does...). Not because being mean to him will do any permanent harm ("cruelty" might have been an exaggeration. You're right, "cruel" is letting someone starve to death, not telling someone they're an idiot...) Not because he has the "right" to act like an an moron, or because i have an "obligation" to be nice to him when he does. But simply because petty bickering, name calling, bullying, and trying to humiliate someone is behavior for children on a playground, not for grown ups. In my opinion. So, maybe the thread should have been titled "Pam's theory of the inborn need for childishness and immaturity".

i understand the guy was asking for it. i realise no real harm was done. i know that it takes almost superhuman strength NOT to insult someone when they deserve it THAT much. None of us are saints here. My point is, if you choose option A over option B, you have to ask yourself, Why couldn't I just let it go? What is it that compelled me to take the more aggressive route, when another option was clearly available? Did i insult him purely because he deserved it, or was i really just looking for an excuse to go off on someone?

pam



laurell3 -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 7:28:40 PM)

You make an assumption that your way is THE way. Many people would tell him he's a jackass. Many would not. One is not better than the other.



DarwinsLilHelper -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 7:46:09 PM)

quote:

A. get everybody in the bar to go over to his table and start mocking him and insulting him, each taking shots at him, until finally he gets so angry and fed up that he eventually leaves


I'm trying to figure out why everybody else in the bar should care about your chicken wings and instantly agree that your the Karl Marx of the Chicken wing revolution if you can't muster a tiny bit of dominance yourself. This is what I'm talking about in the context of the Liberal Professional Victim...Help, Help My Chicken Wings have been oppressed, I'm being repressed. I'm to big a wuss to assert anything...Everybody else come and save me!!!

Maybe Obama will set up a blue ribbon, multi million dollar commission to study hate speech against chicken wings.



juliaoceania -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 9:00:33 PM)

Lets just cut to the chase...


You seem to desire that the world be completely fair, everyone treat each other in a prescribed and civil way, and you are decrying the incivility of the internet, bemoaning the nature of mankind as sucky and cruel.

There is the other side of it, you know, when people are kind to each other. Why not focus on that instead of focusing on the negative? It says a lot about a person that they choose to highlight what they consider "bad" instead of the good...look at the humor sections, the advice given people that is sincere, and that sort of thing....

When we focus on one thing the rest of it can just disappear



Jeffff -> RE: Freud's theory of the inborn need for aggression (6/13/2010 9:05:29 PM)

You are so cute!

I wish I was bi, I'd bang you in a heartbeat!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625