Why do the terms "Cisgender" and "Transgender" Exist?

[MMX2010]

This is what I'm talking about. You are not questioning yourself. You do not ask why I think you're full of crap. To you, you're right, and everyone needs to see that you're right. 

 

This is boring. Moving on.

 

Nathan, because feelings about gender are 100% subjective, it's impossible for anyone to be "full of crap" when discussing their feelings about either their own gender or someone else's gender.  So I don't ask why you think I'm full of crap, because it's philosophically impossible for me to be that way. 

 

Nathan, because feelings about gender are 100% subjective, there's no such thing as "being right". about gender-feelings.  Hence, it's philosophically impossible for me to "want everyone to see that I'm right" with regard to this issue. 

 

-------------------------

 

@Kevin Beal - In an earlier thread, I illustrated the means-ends paradox: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42150-the-meansends-paradox/

 

In this particular thread, (as well as the other Transgenderism thread), it's quite likely that there's a means-ends paradox involved.  Individuals who see those threads from a Means-driven perspective are willing to undergo often uncomfortable discussion in order to achieve a deeper understanding.  But other Ends-driven individuals are only pretending to be willing to undergo uncomfortable discussion, and are instead only interested in portraying themselves as enlightened / authority figures on the topic of transgenderism. 

 

I thought iHuman's post in the other thread was well-articulated and informative.  There was a certain humility contained in his/her words that made it clear that s/he wasn't interested in being the center of attention, nor in portraying himself as either superhuman or authoritative. 

 

Others, however, inevitably find themselves "looking down on" you and me, castigating our "ignorance" and "bigotry" but never, ever interacting with us as curious equals.  Do you experience that constant sense of being looked down upon?  I definitely do. 

[_LiveFree_]

Nathan, because feelings about gender are 100% subjective, it's impossible for anyone to be "full of crap" when discussing their feelings about either their own gender or someone else's gender.  So I don't ask why you think I'm full of crap, because it's philosophically impossible for me to be that way. 

 

Nathan, because feelings about gender are 100% subjective, there's no such thing as "being right". about gender-feelings.  Hence, it's philosophically impossible for me to "want everyone to see that I'm right" with regard to this issue. 

 

-------------------------

 

@Kevin Beal - In an earlier thread, I illustrated the means-ends paradox: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42150-the-meansends-paradox/

 

In this particular thread, (as well as the other Transgenderism thread), it's quite likely that there's a means-ends paradox involved.  Individuals who see those threads from a Means-driven perspective are willing to undergo often uncomfortable discussion in order to achieve a deeper understanding.  But other Ends-driven individuals are only pretending to be willing to undergo uncomfortable discussion, and are instead only interested in portraying themselves as enlightened / authority figures on the topic of transgenderism. 

 

I thought iHuman's post in the other thread was well-articulated and informative.  There was a certain humility contained in his/her words that made it clear that s/he wasn't interested in being the center of attention, nor in portraying himself as either superhuman or authoritative. 

 

Others, however, inevitably find themselves "looking down on" you and me, castigating our "ignorance" and "bigotry" but never, ever interacting with us as curious equals.  Do you experience that constant sense of being looked down upon?  I definitely do. 

 

Me feeling pain in my head because of a headache is 100% subjective. But science has proven that it's because of an increase in blood flow. Science is also showing that feelings of being a gender that is not your biological sex come from certain balances of hormones that flush the brain when a fetus is developing. It is not a delusion. All feelings are subjective. But the causes of those feelings are not necessarily subjective. In the cases of transgender folk, the causes of the feelings are not subjective. 

 

You can hide behind your pseudo-intellectualism all you want. Those of us who have actually learned to apply philosophy and face ourselves can see through you. You use "philosophy" to push people around. This is not the only topic in which you've done it, and you're not the only person on these forums to do it.

[Kevin Beal]

I don't feel like Kevin is normally an unempathetic or bigoted person and would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Your maturity and humility is killing me. Really, I'm clutching my heart spread across the floor gasping for air, in the dark, without you to comfort me.

 

But at least I'm not without hope! haha.

Do you experience that constant sense of being looked down upon?

Well yes, but I can't really throw stones. I'm guilty of speaking authoritatively (without meeting my own standards for justification) as well sometimes. I try not to give conclusions without argument about things which are not obvious or implied by a mutually accepted premise, but it happens sometimes. It can be an emotional experience debating moral issues, and it's very tempting to do it, as it would be to anyone with an emotional investment in any moral question, but it's not always justified and it's something that I need to work on.

 

I can't reasonably hold people to standards that I'm not meeting myself.

 

Not that I think I'm wrong. I stand behind the core of what I said from the beginning of the thread. I've only become increasingly cemented in that belief.

 

 

I didn't know that the other threads had existed until earlier today. I didn't know that lots of people had discussed 7+ pages of this question. I didn't know that there was already a conversation going that had already escalated and the same people ended up in this thread. I didn't know what I was walking into.

 

I hate these kinds of subjects. Determinism, the topic, is against the board's guidelines and I know first hand why that is. It's one of these topics that reason and evidence have nothing to do with. It's triggering, crazy making and it's a moral issue that let's you see another side of people. Transgender and transexuality, it seems, is doomed similarly. I've seen it happen on Facebook, too.

 

I have my beliefs as to why this is the case, but I'm biased, of course.

[MMX2010]

Me feeling pain in my head because of a headache is 100% subjective. But science has proven that it's because of an increase in blood flow. Science is also showing that feelings of being a gender that is not your biological sex come from certain balances of hormones that flush the brain when a fetus is developing. It is not a delusion. All feelings are subjective. But the causes of those feelings are not necessarily subjective. In the cases of transgender folk, the causes of the feelings are not subjective. 

 

Right! 

 

I'm glad you used the headache metaphor, because we know that some people are speaking genuinely when they claim to have headaches.  And other people are lying when they claim to have headaches, because they want sympathy or want to avoid doing something they find unpleasant.  Thankfully, because science has proven that the cause of headaches can be objectively observed, we can use scientific instruments to separate the genuine sufferers from the non-genuine sufferers. 

 

BUT the moment I suggested that transgender is a medical reality, and that, therefore, every individual who claims to be transgender must have their feelings verified via a brain scan, Josh F. (and presumably you) rejected that notion. 

 

It's philosophically inconsistent to SIMULTANEOUSLY say, "Transgender is an objective medical reality, directly observable via brain scans." BUT "No individual transgender person must have their feelings confirmed via brain scans before anyone else believes them."  You have to pick one or the other.

 

 

You can hide behind your pseudo-intellectualism all you want. Those of us who have actually learned to apply philosophy and face ourselves can see through you. You use "philosophy" to push people around. This is not the only topic in which you've done it, and you're not the only person on these forums to do it.

 

Nathan, you're arguing that "On the FDR message boards, where 'pushing people around via philosophy' is both against the rules and aggressively downvoted, THE LACK OF downvotes against my posts is evidence that I'm 'pushing people around via philosophy'."

 

At this point, retract the accusation - because there's no evidence to support it, and because I have a triple digit positive reputation. 

 

Seriously, step away from this thread.  It's against the rules to make accusations that you cannot provide strong evidence for. 

I hate these kinds of subjects. Determinism, the topic, is against the board's guidelines and I know first hand why that is. It's one of these topics that reason and evidence have nothing to do with. It's triggering, crazy making and it's a moral issue that let's you see another side of people. Transgender and transexuality, it seems, is doomed similarly. I've seen it happen on Facebook, too.

 

I have my beliefs as to why this is the case, but I'm biased, of course.

 

To me, I think it's the difference between "players" and "fans". 

 

"Players" are those who are transgender and suffer prejudice and other negative experiences from birth over a long period of years.  Most of these "players" are humble and looking to avoid the spotlight. 

 

"Fans" are either transgender or not.  And it feels like the non-transgender people have the strongest opinions about what other people "should do" and "should believe".  Their very nature as "non-transgender, but fans" disconnects them from what transgender individuals feel.  So it's easier for them to make global pronouncements. 

 

In that other thread, one transgender individual (won't say who) chatted with me for about an hour.  And it was a good conversation, with a lot of mutual questions being asked.  And he/she (forgot which....sorry) taught me that it's offensive to say "transgendered" - so I've never used that word since.  I appreciate that one-on-one "player"-to-person interaction. 

 

The "fans", however, can't bring themselves to have this one-on-one conversation.  They'd rather use insults and accusations which, when levied from a distance, create that sense of "superior distancing" that I think is the number one goal of their participation. 

[_LiveFree_]

Right! 

 

I'm glad you used the headache metaphor, because we know that some people are speaking genuinely when they claim to have headaches.  And other people are lying when they claim to have headaches, because they want sympathy or want to avoid doing something they find unpleasant.  Thankfully, because science has proven that the cause of headaches can be objectively observed, we can use scientific instruments to separate the genuine sufferers from the non-genuine sufferers. 

 

BUT the moment I suggested that transgender is a medical reality, and that, therefore, every individual who claims to be transgender must have their feelings verified via a brain scan, Josh F. (and presumably you) rejected that notion. 

 

It's philosophically inconsistent to SIMULTANEOUSLY say, "Transgender is an objective medical reality, directly observable via brain scans." BUT "No individual transgender person must have their feelings confirmed via brain scans before anyone else believes them."  You have to pick one or the other.

 

 

 

Nathan, you're arguing that "On the FDR message boards, where 'pushing people around via philosophy' is both against the rules and aggressively downvoted, THE LACK OF downvotes against my posts is evidence that I'm 'pushing people around via philosophy'."

 

At this point, retract the accusation - because there's no evidence to support it, and because I have a triple digit positive reputation. 

 

Seriously, step away from this thread.  It's against the rules to make accusations that you cannot provide strong evidence for. 

 

Oh please. Not a chance. And I think I'm going to step away from the forums because someone like you would be able to acquire such a positive amount of rep. I mean I guess it was inevitable, the more popular something becomes, the lesser the degree of quality people it attracts. 

 

I don't need a brain scan to know I have a headache. No one should be required to take a brain scan to know they are transgender. Most diagnoses of all ailments are made because of strong evidence that suggests whatever diagnoses, not because there is undeniable proof. You wield philosophy like a kid with a gun. You don't know what you're doing, and you should spend far less time on these forums and much more time with a therapist, headphones and podcasts, and journaling. Philosophy is the most powerful weapon in the world and by swinging it around carelessly like you do, YOU are a dangerous weapon. One that isn't being used for noble or righteous purposes. 

 

If you think popularity makes you good, all i need to do is point to every dictator that's ever lived. The only thing that matters in this thread is philosophy, and the way you use it is atrocious.

[Kevin Beal]

Oh please. Not a chance.

 

[...]

 

The only thing that matters in this thread is philosophy, and the way you use it is atrocious.

You keep making comments to this effect and yet you keep engaging him.

 

If you think he's a doofus or dishonest or whatever, then it would be irrational for you engage him to try and change his mind. If it's for other people's benefit, to demonstrate some weakness in his arguments, then you really ought to let other people come to these conclusions themselves rather than suggest all sorts of nasty things about his character. If it's neither of these things, but rather to just cut him down because you don't like him, then let's just be honest about that.

[_LiveFree_]

You keep making comments to this effect and yet you keep engaging him.

 

If you think he's a doofus or dishonest or whatever, then it would be irrational for you engage him to try and change his mind. If it's for other people's benefit, to demonstrate some weakness in his arguments, then you really ought to let other people come to these conclusions themselves rather than suggest all sorts of nasty things about his character. If it's neither of these things, but rather to just cut him down because you don't like him, then let's just be honest about that.

 

Yes, because, ya know, that's what using philosophy is for. To let other people who can't see evil figure it out for themselves. That is not consistent with the philosophy I've learned here. 

[Kevin Beal]

Yes, because, ya know, that's what using philosophy is for. To let other people who can't see evil figure it out for themselves. That is not consistent with the philosophy I've learned here.

How is telling him that he's doing atrocious things, is boring, doesn't know anything about anything, etc helping other people see evil?

 

You talk about it like it's totally obvious, but if your purpose is to alert others, then you're saying that people can't see things that are totally obvious to you, which is obviously offensive.

 

I was suggesting that you point out the errors and save the insults for another time. Because if it's insults, it's not really philosophy, right? And philosophy is what you're doing?

[_LiveFree_]

How is telling him that he's doing atrocious things, is boring, doesn't know anything about anything, etc helping other people see evil?

 

You talk about it like it's totally obvious, but if your purpose is to alert others, then you're saying that people can't see things that are totally obvious to you, which is obviously offensive.

 

I was suggesting that you point out the errors and save the insults for another time. Because if it's insults, it's not really philosophy, right? And philosophy is what you're doing?

 

What does that mean, "you talk about it like it's totally obvious." 

[Kevin Beal]

Okay, well what about this one?

 

My perception of the majority of this thread is that there is a ton of ignorance on the topic. And this is being masked in word play, bad philosophy, and unprocessed childhood trauma.

You didn't even read much of the thread before concluding this.

You can hide behind your pseudo-intellectualism all you want. Those of us who have actually learned to apply philosophy and face ourselves can see through you. You use "philosophy" to push people around.

And what if I said that I had applied philosophy in my own life more consistently than you have and then claim to see through you? Well, you wouldn't believe it, would you?

 

I'd hesitate to whip this one out. If you're wrong, it's pretty messy.

[MMX2010]

 

 

I'd hesitate to whip this one out. If you're wrong, it's pretty messy.

 

Messy isn't the right word for it.

 

If he's wrong, then he's guilty of everything he's accusing me of. 

 

First, he accused me of not being curious, because I only answered one of his questions.  But he's never answered any of my questions, which makes him guilty according to his own philosophy.

 

Second, he accused me of wanting to be right and needing everyone else to see that.  But I said that since everyone's feelings about their own (and other people's) gender are subjective, there's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" feeling - so I can't possibly "want to be right and need other people to see it". 

 

Third, he accused me of "trolling". 

 

Fourth, he accused me of being "abusive" (AND strongly implied that no member of the FDR Staff was smart enough, nor alert enough, to see this).

 

So "messy" is the wrong word for it.  But "self-incriminating" is the right word for it. 

 

---------------------

 

As an aside, one of the more amusing aspects of Queer Theory is how it states that everyone's feelings about their own gender are subjective, and that no one has the authority to tell you what your gender is.  In that case, why not just declare that everyone's gender is either slightly or significantly different from everyone else's?  Meaning that, as of right now, there are approximately 7.5 billion genders in the world. 

 

Some people would find this conclusion annoying and inconvenient.  Some would find it offensive and baffling.  But since neither of those four words are arguments, and since it's consistent with Queer Theory, why not? 

[_LiveFree_]

Okay, well what about this one?You didn't even read much of the thread before concluding this.And what if I said that I had applied philosophy in my own life more consistently than you have and then claim to see through you? Well, you wouldn't believe it, would you?I'd hesitate to whip this one out. If you're wrong, it's pretty messy.

Where did you get the idea that I hadn't read the thread? I never said that. Wtf, kev? *(never said I hadn't read the thread. I guess i wasn't clear on that.)*I have waited months and months with MMX, each time choosing to not engage.I might believe it if there was a clear example, which I did give. It's not like I walked in here blind.And I'm not wrong.

[MMX2010]

Kevin Beal said, "And what if I said that I had applied philosophy in my own life more consistently than you and claim to see through you?"  Well, then you wouldn't believe it, would you?  I'd hate to whip this one out.  If you're wrong, it's pretty messy. 

 

Everyone who reads Kevin Beal's statement knows that "whipping this one out" means "Stating or implying that you've used philosophy better and more consistently than the person you're disagreeing with."

 

-----------------

 

Nathan Diehl replies to Kevin Beal's words by saying, "Where did you get the idea that I hadn't read the thread?  I never said that.  Wtf, kev?" 

 

Not only is Nathan Diehl's statement presumptuous and accusatory, but it also COMPLETELY MISREADS what Kevin Beal actually stated. 

 

Lastly, Nathan Diehl has ALREADY "whipped that one out" by saying, "The way that MMX uses philosophy is atrocious" and by saying, "Those of us who have actually learned to apply philosophy and face ourselves can see through you."  (The problem, though, Nathan Diehl, is that you're the only one claiming to "see through me" - (Everyone else either agrees with me, or doesn't reply to me.). 

 

This begs the question of whether you think you're the only philosophically and morally upright individual on this board.  Because you're definitely acting like you believe that.  And if you're wrong, it's pretty "messy" and self-detonating. 

[Sinsin]

 

 

Transgerner is a very broad term created by those who did not feel the same way about their sex or gender as the other 99.?% of the population.

 

It starts with being confused about your sex or gender roles and although it can be correlated with homosexuality, it doesn't have too much to do with it since there are trans people who are only attracted to the opositive sex, so they're not homosexual.  It doesn't get confusing until you get to genderfluid, bigender, pangender, thirdgender and etc, which is basicly people who don't think thier feelings are explained within the gender binary classification so they've created all these terms, which sometimes can have complete different meanings depending on which trans person you ask.  I recommand you to read Genderqueer on wiki for more info, but it is all feeling for now, so it's very subjective until there is a solid explanation for why some people are feeling this way.

 

Cisgender is a just a term trans people use to refer to normal people; people who have never had real doubts about their gender.

[_LiveFree_]

No apologies have come back from this.

[Kevin Beal]

No apologies have come back from this.

What specifically do you think warrants an apology?

[_LiveFree_]

You were wrong and made false accusations against me. I was right.

[Kevin Beal]

You were wrong and made false accusations against me. I was right.

I've re-read this thread a couple times to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and the only thing I can see that I was wrong about (that I didn't already concede and thank you for correcting) was saying that you hadn't read the entire thread. I don't remember why I thought that, but it seems I was wrong about that. For that, I apologize, specifically for assuming to know how much you read, implying with that that you were prematurely drawing conclusions. That was me prematurely drawing a conclusion, presumably via projection. I'll be careful to more honestly balance trusting my gut with getting evidence first. I can't imagine an apology this late would be very satisfying, but certainly I was wrong about that.

 

I also regret being snarky about Josh's comments about me. I don't feel sorry, but it's not how I want to present myself.

 

I'm assuming to know what you are referring to (looking at post #82?), and if I'm wrong then I'm still assuming things, wrongly. Specifically, I'm assuming what the false accusation you are referring to is. Even if I'm right, I still don't know what you were right and me wrong about, unless it was about having read the whole thread.

 

All I have to go on are these two sentences. If you meant something else, I ask that you elaborate enough that there would be no confusing your meaning.

[jpahmad]

You were wrong and made false accusations against me. I was right.

 

Nathan, are you serious with the above statement?  Or are you just being funny?

 

Firstly, the term disease is extremely broad.  We can say it certainly isn't a byproduct of some external germ like having a flu so the most straight forward definition is out.  The other definition, where it gets broad enough to define gambling as a disease, is the next place.  It is said to be a disease if it causes pain, distress, anxiety, to yourself or others.

 

 

Then yes, by that definition it is a disease.  And so is anarchism, defooing, and telling the truth as they can all create social problems or distress for the person doing it or those in contact with the person.  So lets just say that any logic like this used to diminish the argument for gender theory equally applies to any and all ideas in contrast with "normal" society.  

 

 

 

This is a very important part of the thread.  I don't think it has gotten an adequate amount of attention.  These questions need to be answered:

 

1. What is a disease?
2. Is a disease a fortunate or unfortunate thing to have?  Or is it neutral?
3. What is normal?
4. Does normal have positive or negative connotations?
5. Is having a disease normal?
6. What are the "proper" emotions to feel towards someone with a disease?
7. Is transgender a disease?

Fyi, I don't have answers to these questions.

[_LiveFree_]

I've re-read this thread a couple times to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and the only thing I can see that I was wrong about (that I didn't already concede and thank you for correcting) was saying that you hadn't read the entire thread. I don't remember why I thought that, but it seems I was wrong about that. For that, I apologize, specifically for assuming to know how much you read, implying with that that you were prematurely drawing conclusions. That was me prematurely drawing a conclusion, presumably via projection. I'll be careful to more honestly balance trusting my gut with getting evidence first. I can't imagine an apology this late would be very satisfying, but certainly I was wrong about that.

 

I also regret being snarky about Josh's comments about me. I don't feel sorry, but it's not how I want to present myself.

 

I'm assuming to know what you are referring to (looking at post #82?), and if I'm wrong then I'm still assuming things, wrongly. Specifically, I'm assuming what the false accusation you are referring to is. Even if I'm right, I still don't know what you were right and me wrong about, unless it was about having read the whole thread.

 

All I have to go on are these two sentences. If you meant something else, I ask that you elaborate enough that there would be no confusing your meaning.

 

So firstly, thank you, Kevin. You're right, I wasn't looking for any apologies because it's been too long. You apologized anyway. I want to apologize to you for taking out my frustration with MMX toward you. I was worked up and should have stepped away sooner like you said. (I did end up walking away from the board for a few months after this.) You were right and I was wrong on that. 

 

Secondly, at the time of this thread, MMX had a positive rep count of about 230 or something and has since then managed to drop down to -210. That's impressive. The reason for that is because of the behavior he has displayed time and again on these forums, in this thread, and in his call with Stef. It was this behavior I was (very poorly) calling out. The irony of him claiming that his triple digit positive rep count is evidence that he wasn't behaving poorly is not lost on me. What is not so with the cool is how a sophist of his caliber can gain that much positive rep here. 

 

What am I after for posting in this thread after 9 months? I can see bullcrap coming from a long way off. But I have difficulty knowing how to handle it while it is still a long way off. In the last few months I've gained quite a bit more patience in this regard and the fortitude to not act early. However, I still feel anxiety when faced with bullies. Especially when those bullies are sophists. I don't like the way I handled myself in this thread, even though I was correct about MMX and the topic at hand. So what I don't understand (or a skill that I am lacking) is how to end this kind of junk sooner rather than later. 

 

Empirically, the approach I used did not work at all. It was emotionally based and resulted in me needing to leave the forum and MMX continuing to do what he does for 9 more months. On a forum with someone who posts as much as he does, or in life with someone who talks too much, or with anyone who is talented at sophistry and uses social humiliation to control situations, what does a person do to handle those situations? I understand walking away, but sometimes I don't think that tactic is enough. (maybe that is incorrect) Pointing out his errors took quite a long time to work and only serves to strengthen how he feels about his position.

 

This issue is pervasive here to the point were a moderator was sucked in to MMX's whirlwind of words and we almost lost an important member of the community (who has quite a lot to offer) because of it (I won't name the member or moderator nor link to where it happened. I will say it didn't have anything to do with me.). Did you see something I didn't? Do you agree with MMX's manner of interacting or find nothing wrong with it? 

 

So, no I was not trying to cut MMX down by wantonly insulting him. I still believe every word I said. And I thank you for trying to head me off and direct me toward a better method. My frustration stems from the fact that so few people were standing up to him. 

 

All of this, but I'm still open to the possibility I'm being a dick. Either way, your feedback would be appreciated.  

[Frosty]

I've pondered this some more. Is gender subjective? Well your experience of your own gender identity sure is, but I'm pretty sure that you can measure it in some approximate way with respect to that of your society and culture.

 

My casual understanding of gender at this point is not biological sex but rather behavioural patterns which are normally associated with your biological sex, so absent any kind of physical disability, illness, mental issues or conditioning, biological males tend to behave in masculine ways and biological females tend to behave in feminine ways. For example males tend to have more aggressive play behaviour, they favour physical conflict, females are more empathetic and interested in helping people, males tend to prefer systems they can build/manipulate.

 

Like most human behaviour it exists on a continuum, I'm wary of arguments of binary words describing a continuum, I think these things are approximations and it's a failure of language and our ability to objectively measure that cause the confusion, rather than the idea being wrong to start with. So people can be masculine or feminine to different degrees, the same way that wet and not wet (dry) are also not binary, there's degrees of being wet but we can say that something is very wet in the same casual way we could say that someone is very feminine.

 

There is a lot of evidence that shows that both gender and even sexual preference are rooted in biology, there's markers in our physical biology, in the structure of the brain and certain other markers such as ratio of the 2nd and 4th finger length that correspond to testosterone exposure, testosterone is what takes a female foetus which we're all born as, and turns that into a male. When we observe differences in gender both in the subjective experience which is portrayed by transgender people but also in the observed behavioural patterns they correlate very well with biological differences, so for example women who show biological signs of testosterone over exposure will have a gender identity which closer matches masculine traits rather than feminine, they're more likely to be interested in STEM fields, be interested in systems, do work as engineers rather than work with people as nurses or carers.

 

As long as transgender and cisgender just mean your gender identity mismatch or match from your biological sex, I don't really have a problem with that. There's some issues with regards to being able to measure this on an objective scale and where exactly we draw the line between when someone is transgender or cisgender, but this is not the only valid idea that suffers this issue, it doesn't invalidate idea.

[Kevin Beal]

What is not so with the cool is how a sophist of his caliber can gain that much positive rep here.

I don't like that either. And he's not the only one. I'm sure there are people who think that of me, though.

 

On a forum with someone who posts as much as he does, or in life with someone who talks too much, or with anyone who is talented at sophistry and uses social humiliation to control situations, what does a person do to handle those situations? I understand walking away, but sometimes I don't think that tactic is enough. (maybe that is incorrect) Pointing out his errors took quite a long time to work and only serves to strengthen how he feels about his position.

I think that's what trolls do best, is they reveal what other people are avoiding talking about. That social humiliation is an opportunity, I'm convinced (assuming I've understood your meaning).

 

I don't think it's something to be fought. At least, not by the target. I'm not necessarily only talking about trolls/bullies, but if someone has successfully sniffed out something I'm avoiding (some people are pros at this) then I give them what they want. I try and take everyone at face value, especially if I suspect they're arguing in bad faith.

 

People who are looking for a fight over a forum by instigating and provoking people talk as if what they want is for their target to admit some fault. And probably, some part of them does really want this, even if who they are really talking to is their own parental introjects.

 

I'm okay with admitting fault, big or small. I have to do it on a regular basis. But it is not expected, especially by bullies. They generally don't know how to respond, so they usually don't.

 

It's like what Stef says about bad arguments: go ahead and accept all of their premises, a bad argument is still going to fall. In fact, it often just makes it even more apparent how bad the argument really was when you do that.

 

I find that when you take people being immature, or clandestine, or bullying and give them what they want, they are revealed as being a bully, and you look very mature and reasonable in comparison.

 

That's the approach I'm starting to use and have some success with. And if I'm wrong and they were being honest, then I also win there because I admitted fault where it was not only due, but relevant.

 

Did you see something I didn't? Do you agree with MMX's manner of interacting or find nothing wrong with it?

What I saw was that he was revealing where people become reactive. People show a different side of themselves when things get tough, and ugly. That's a side of people I want to see, and not remain ignorant of. He is very skilled at provoking people and I find some significant value in that. It's probably a big part of the reason that he's attracted as many allies as he has.

 

My problem with him is not that he provokes people, or that he's an asshole at times. My problem is that he's dishonest, hypocritical and doesn't care about logic, all the while claiming to represent a healthy psychology and be a philosopher.

 

I haven't read even half of what he's written on the boards, but my perception was that the dishonesty was relatively new. If you saw it way back then, then I can imagine why it would be frustrating for you.

[MMX2010]

So firstly, thank you, Kevin. You're right, I wasn't looking for any apologies because it's been too long. You apologized anyway. I want to apologize to you for taking out my frustration with MMX toward you. I was worked up and should have stepped away sooner like you said. (I did end up walking away from the board for a few months after this.) You were right and I was wrong on that. 

 

Secondly, at the time of this thread, MMX had a positive rep count of about 230 or something and has since then managed to drop down to -210. That's impressive. The reason for that is because of the behavior he has displayed time and again on these forums, in this thread, and in his call with Stef. It was this behavior I was (very poorly) calling out. The irony of him claiming that his triple digit positive rep count is evidence that he wasn't behaving poorly is not lost on me. What is not so with the cool is how a sophist of his caliber can gain that much positive rep here. 

 

Meanwhile, I asked Nathan Diehl to identify the "behavior" he keeps referring to, but he refuses to clarify it. 

 

I've also pointed out that people who Skype with me directly get a completely different opinion of me than those who downvote me from a distance.  I then asked, "Which group is being more philosophically rigorous?  Those who interact with me more personally and form their opinions OR those who refuse to interact with me personally and form their opinions?" 

 

I'll also add that I'm part of the Best NYC FDR Meet-Up Group.  Last week, we had four new members, one of whom instantly knew who I was even though I never identified myself.  After a lovely five hour meeting, all four new members thanked me for my contribution.  And one of them even suggested out loud that he might want me to coach him in how to understand women and Pick-Up Artistry. 

 

So, Nathan, you accurately point out that the reputation system is broken.  But you're trying to elevate your own method of interacting with me - (presumptive and impersonal) - over other peoples' methods of interacting with me - (non-presumptive, personal).  And that argument is soooooo bad that you can't possibly advance it without impugning yourself and everyone who supports your argument.  

[_LiveFree_]

I don't like that either. And he's not the only one. I'm sure there are people who think that of me, though.

 

I think that's what trolls do best, is they reveal what other people are avoiding talking about. That social humiliation is an opportunity, I'm convinced (assuming I've understood your meaning).

 

I don't think it's something to be fought. At least, not by the target. I'm not necessarily only talking about trolls/bullies, but if someone has successfully sniffed out something I'm avoiding (some people are pros at this) then I give them what they want. I try and take everyone at face value, especially if I suspect they're arguing in bad faith.

 

People who are looking for a fight over a forum by instigating and provoking people talk as if what they want is for their target to admit some fault. And probably, some part of them does really want this, even if who they are really talking to is their own parental introjects.

 

I'm okay with admitting fault, big or small. I have to do it on a regular basis. But it is not expected, especially by bullies. They generally don't know how to respond, so they usually don't.

 

It's like what Stef says about bad arguments: go ahead and accept all of their premises, a bad argument is still going to fall. In fact, it often just makes it even more apparent how bad the argument really was when you do that.

 

I find that when you take people being immature, or clandestine, or bullying and give them what they want, they are revealed as being a bully, and you look very mature and reasonable in comparison.

 

That's the approach I'm starting to use and have some success with. And if I'm wrong and they were being honest, then I also win there because I admitted fault where it was not only due, but relevant.

 

What I saw was that he was revealing where people become reactive. People show a different side of themselves when things get tough, and ugly. That's a side of people I want to see, and not remain ignorant of. He is very skilled at provoking people and I find some significant value in that. It's probably a big part of the reason that he's attracted as many allies as he has.

 

My problem with him is not that he provokes people, or that he's an asshole at times. My problem is that he's dishonest, hypocritical and doesn't care about logic, all the while claiming to represent a healthy psychology and be a philosopher.

 

I haven't read even half of what he's written on the boards, but my perception was that the dishonesty was relatively new. If you saw it way back then, then I can imagine why it would be frustrating for you.

 

 

Thanks for this, Kevin. It's given me something to think about.