Awareness
Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Strewth, A. You say yourself, not a few lines later, that 'Words are defined by their usage within a community'. What do you think your continued use of 'fuckings', laced with the odd 'cunt', say, given that? I'm glad you asked. Now pay attention, because this kind of stuff is way outside your comfort zone.
They serve two purposes. One, invective conveys attitude in a nuanced way. It imbues a sentence with an emotional undertone. Comedians know the difference between working clean and not. Working clean works for some people but it restricts the range of attitudes you can convey in an art form where laconic pithy expression is a tool for connecting with the audience.
Second - and only those with a sense of flow will understand this, invective is the insertion of superfluous words into a sentence that alters the rhythm without impacting the meaning. Together, the combination of emotional content and lyrical rhythm punches up the delivery.
There's a great discussion about this between Ricky Gervais and Jerry Seinfeld which perfectly illustrates this concept.
https://youtu.be/OKY6BGcx37k?t=35m50s
Now, I don't for a moment expect you to be intellectually honest about this, but that is a close approximation of what's going on. When posting here I float between wry amusement, exasperation and disbelief at the various classes of idiocy I encounter. Irritated? Yes. But actually angry? Get a fucking grip.
Bingo! Right there. It doesn't work as well without the fucking.
quote:
They're meant to imply what you want them to imply. I've no need for great levels of perception and imagination Yeah, I'd disagree with that. You're rather... milquetoast. Some imagination would spice up your personality no end.
quote:
- everybody knows a boor when he sees one writing. As for 'sense of superiority' - what is the matter with you? You've spent a major about of the time on this board telling me and other malesubs that we're intent on fostering a sense of *inferiority* in ourselves. This is our 'weakness', in your view. The weakness you refuse to acknowledge? Well that would mean you were deluding yourself then, wouldn't it?
Exactly.
quote:
Simply cretinous. You knew, or should know, that 'made up terms' is derived from the phrase 'social construct' itself. 'Constructed' = 'made up'. But now you're being willfully stupid. They're called "words" you fucking dipshit. Words! All words are "made up terms".
Explain to me how these "made up terms" you're talking about are different from "words".
quote:
It's a metaphor, you simpleton.
quote:
Righty ho - when called on for invoking two thinkers with questionable scientific credentials, in support of the scientific argument you put in the preceding paragraph, pop, you're now talking 'metaphors'. God, you're a bullshitter.  For Christ's sake, Jungian archetypes are fucking metaphors. They're not descriptions of reality. Honestly, you're so literal-minded it's no wonder you have absolutely no sense of humour.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
Strong teens join gangs because they are the only social unit in Western societies which engage in rites of passage. The lack of rites of passage in Western societies has thus caused multiple social problems, with one being men such as yourself who compromise their masculinity in their quest for female acceptance. The woman is the centre of your social existence and thus your masculinity is warped to that end.
The last sentence is of course simply prejudiced nonsense. As for the rest: Get real. Teen boys join gangs and end up screwing up at school and frequently falling into the arms of the police. Gangs enforce and reinforce behaviour. The individual kid who doesn't actually want to be a violent thug is bullied by peer group pressure into being just that. The average gang-member is not more free and more individual, he's less so on both counts. I'm talking about rites of passage, their importance in societies and how the lack thereof means boys search for social structures which have them.
You've gone off on a complete tangent. Your lack of focus simply makes it impossible for you to keep up with the discussion. It's becoming clear to me why you're unable to address the issues I raise.
quote:
Does this tactic work, A? Seriously? I must try it some time. 'Try to gauge what is most glaringly wrong with your own thinking and what your opponent is most likely to throw at you - and hit him with exactly that first!' Congratulations. You just articulated "I'm rubber and you're glue" without the brevity. Still having trouble understanding why you're coming across as childish?
quote:
Nup, you're still missing the basic point, and I can no longer be bothered to teach you it. You don't have a basic point. You're unable to explain the inherent contradiction and instead bluster about how you're an authority. Maybe they teach you that in "gender studies" but it's a fallacious attempt at argument.
quote:
As of last month, 'were', in both cases. No, they were both proud of me. They were right wing, but saw what I'd struggled for, on occasion. And you demonstrate sod all understanding of the Left, yet again, by talking about it in the way that you do. Straw man upon straw man. But what about you, A? No doubt the same could never be said of yourself, having honed your mind and body into the warrior-like state it's in today - and fought so heroically for all that you believe in, hmmm? I mean, doubtless you're *much* more than just a keyboard warrior and the Silverback of CS? What you'd struggled for? Now that's a laugh. Your idea of struggle is convincing yourself you're a member of the bourgeoisie because you went to "the right school". Your inherent acceptance of England's class-based society and your deluded belief in your own superiority by virtue of the social class you think you've joined is the classic kind of pompous fucking tommyrot which Australians despise.
Struggle, my ass.
quote:
Cobblers, and you know it. From WW1 through to the present-day some of the bravest people there have been, have been conscientious objectors. And you, old chap, are pissing all over (to use your own delightful phrase) the ex-fighters who have campaigned against war. Spoken like someone who has no fucking idea about the horror of war. It takes more gumption to charge into machine-gun fire than it does to suffer some social disapproval.
Soldiers don't campaign against war, they campaign against senseless war. Against unjustified war. Or do you think those men who've bled for their country think we should all lie down in the dirt and let our nations be taken from us because "war is bad"?
No, most of the anti-war groups are socialist nutcases who contend war is something which capitalists do. Another reason to despise them.
quote:
Tell me where I've ever said that women can't be as nasty as men, you blithering fruitcake. You've been pretty clear about your worshipful attitude toward women. That attitude prevents you from seeing them as they are. After all, in your world, women don't have agency and are just victims of men. I think that's a completely bizarre viewpoint, but you cling to it like it's a lifeline.
_____________________________
Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.
|
RE: Don't Women Want The Same Things As Men? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread