Men Insulting Each Other

[Guest Gee]

Was this just a colloquial hunk of wisdom Stef was giving out or does it have some rational backing?

 

It just struck me that there probably exists a positivly corrolated relationship between men verbally abusing each other and socio-political freedom. I think it has a certain apeal when you consider the more free a society the more men must be willing to take risks and so deal with the emotions that come from rejection etc.

 

I can't quantify the relationship but consider the following, the index of economic freedom usually places Australia at the top of the index as the most free anglo country.

 

Consider now common preceptions of Australians, pic related.

 

 

[i'm moving to AUS or NZ, one of the big draws to AUS is the savage banter]

[Drew.]

It just struck me that there probably exists a positivly corrolated relationship between men verbally abusing each other and socio-political freedom. I think it has a certain apeal when you consider the more free a society the more men must be willing to take risks and so deal with the emotions that come from rejection etc.

 

I can't quantify the relationship but consider the following, the index of economic freedom usually places Australia at the top of the index as the most free anglo country.

[i'm moving to AUS or NZ, one of the big draws to AUS is the savage banter]

 

That's an interesting correlation that you mention. Personally, I have found myself experiencing a greater risk tolerance as I have moved away from verbally abusive/banter based relationships. Sometimes the comments would strike home at any insecurities that I had. During those high risk, high stress situations, those insecurities and comments would come back to me and inhibit my drive and confidence to succeed.

[Guest Gee]

That's an interesting correlation that you mention. Personally, I have found myself experiencing a greater risk tolerance as I have moved away from verbally abusive/banter based relationships. Sometimes the comments would strike home at any insecurities that I had. During those high risk, high stress situations, those insecurities and comments would come back to me and inhibit my drive and confidence to succeed.

 

In personal relationships I think you are bang on, negativity kills.

 

I might be wrong, maybe it makes more sense as a precondition for doing the things that are going to upset people which freedom require? Like, maybe if your going maintain that freedom, or even increase it, you're going to upset so many people and there going to get very abusive and you've got to get to the point that the abuse doesn't effect you to much, like how Cernovich talks about "being already dead". I think that would also explain a correlation between socio-economic freedom and verbal abuse.

 

OR maybe it could even be though of as a tool needed to help maximise human output in society? Say your in AUS and more free than in China, the same amount of effort gets you alot more satisfaction in life. So in order to maximise what men do in more free societies you need a way of devaluing that comfy state which is quight easily achievable. That then makes doing work and taking risks seem more attractive in comparison.

 

Again, could be totally wrong.

 

To use rugby as an analogy, when it is high stress and high pressure, negitivity kills. If your team starts bickering and being abusive during the game you might as well go home because you've already lost. In training however, it is very useful in getting more out of people.

[Drew.]

In personal relationships I think you are bang on, negativity kills.

 

I might be wrong, maybe it makes more sense as a precondition for doing the things that are going to upset people which freedom require? Like, maybe if your going maintain that freedom, or even increase it, you're going to upset so many people and there going to get very abusive and you've got to get to the point that the abuse doesn't effect you to much, like how Cernovich talks about "being already dead". I think that would also explain a correlation between socio-economic freedom and verbal abuse.

 

OR maybe it could even be though of as a tool needed to help maximise human output in society? Say your in AUS and more free than in China, the same amount of effort gets you alot more satisfaction in life. So in order to maximise what men do in more free societies you need a way of devaluing that comfy state which is quight easily achievable. That then makes doing work and taking risks seem more attractive in comparison.

 

Again, could be totally wrong.

 

To use rugby as an analogy, when it is high stress and high pressure, negitivity kills. If your team starts bickering and being abusive during the game you might as well go home because you've already lost. In training however, it is very useful in getting more out of people.

 

Personally, I don't like the idea of being "already dead." To mean, that seems like it is numbness and dissociation. They are valuable tools, but there is a time and a place. So often, people become numb and dissociated as their primary means of existence.

 

In my experience, there have been two ways to deal with attack and pain. One is to numb myself to it, which fundamentally doesn't resolve it, and it leaves me open for a similar attack in the future if it hit home. The second is to explore it and resolve any insecurities and doubts that I might have about myself. The next time that I have encountered an attack like that, it is such a breeze to brush it off. I think that being dead on the inside or numb is a tragic thing. Someone might be hurt and not even realizing it. This pain will trap them, as you compulsively engage in behaviors to manage and minimize the pain. Last week, I injured myself when I was playing a game with a neighborhood child. I am so glad and grateful to have experienced the pain and still experience the minor pain and discomfort in my knee as it tells me that I have to be careful. If I could not feel this pain, I would likely damage my knee further. If someone cannot feel their sorrow and agony, they will damage themselves further.

 

It definitely is a valuable skill to defend oneself from attack. I will agree with you there. I do not think that numbness and deadness is the best solution, though. It is incredibly easy, as we are all raised to do that.

[Guest Gee]

Personally, I don't like the idea of being "already dead." To mean, that seems like it is numbness and dissociation. They are valuable tools, but there is a time and a place. So often, people become numb and dissociated as their primary means of existence.

 

In my experience, there have been two ways to deal with attack and pain. One is to numb myself to it, which fundamentally doesn't resolve it, and it leaves me open for a similar attack in the future if it hit home. The second is to explore it and resolve any insecurities and doubts that I might have about myself. The next time that I have encountered an attack like that, it is such a breeze to brush it off. I think that being dead on the inside or numb is a tragic thing. Someone might be hurt and not even realizing it. This pain will trap them, as you compulsively engage in behaviors to manage and minimize the pain. Last week, I injured myself when I was playing a game with a neighborhood child. I am so glad and grateful to have experienced the pain and still experience the minor pain and discomfort in my knee as it tells me that I have to be careful. If I could not feel this pain, I would likely damage my knee further. If someone cannot feel their sorrow and agony, they will damage themselves further.

 

It definitely is a valuable skill to defend oneself from attack. I will agree with you there. I do not think that numbness and deadness is the best solution, though. It is incredibly easy, as we are all raised to do that.

 

I agree about the "being dead already" idea. I responded quight negitivly when I first head it, repulsed almost. But I don't think he uses it as dissociation, I think he uses it to devalue possible negitive outcomes when he does things like attend BLM marchs. I think he might slip into it like a fuge state, or like psyching yourself up but without the adrenalin. But this might be dissociation, I might not understand the term.

 

I fully agree with you on the personal abuse and the need to work on self knowledge.

[Drew.]

I agree about the "being dead already" idea. I responded quight negitivly when I first head it, repulsed almost. But I don't think he uses it as dissociation, I think he uses it to devalue possible negitive outcomes when he does things like attend BLM marchs. I think he might slip into it like a fuge state, or like psyching yourself up but without the adrenalin. But this might be dissociation, I might not understand the term.

 

I fully agree with you on the personal abuse and the need to work on self knowledge.

 

Oh, okay. So, it's different than what I first thought. I think that it is still dissociative, as it still seems mood-altering. As I am sure that I have mentioned, dissociation has a time and a place.

 

So, it's more like a more of a way to push away fear and anxiety. These two emotions are used to help us be wary of things that may lead to our death, among other things, and if one is dead already, then there is nothing to fear.

[Guest Gee]

Oh, okay. So, it's different than what I first thought. I think that it is still dissociative, as it still seems mood-altering. As I am sure that I have mentioned, dissociation has a time and a place.

 

So, it's more like a more of a way to push away fear and anxiety. These two emotions are used to help us be wary of things that may lead to our death, among other things, and if one is dead already, then there is nothing to fear.

 

That is how I thought of it. I think it is a really fine line but that is, I think, the beneficial aspect of men insulting each other.

 

If you can imagine measuring the relative fear and anxiety between doing nothing and taking a risk then men insulting each other can reduce the relative difference in anxiety by raising the anxiety you feel by doing nothing, thereby making the risk look more attractive.

 

It could be very counterproductive, especially when done by people without your genuine interests at heart, but if the converse is true and some such person had the knowledge to know that the risk is worth taking, I can see benefits.

[Drew.]

That is how I thought of it. I think it is a really fine line but that is, I think, the beneficial aspect of men insulting each other.

 

If you can imagine measuring the relative fear and anxiety between doing nothing and taking a risk then men insulting each other can reduce the relative difference in anxiety by raising the anxiety you feel by doing nothing, thereby making the risk look more attractive.

 

It could be very counterproductive, especially when done by people without your genuine interests at heart, but if the converse is true and some such person had the knowledge to know that the risk is worth taking, I can see benefits.

 

Another way that it could be counter-productive is when the person already has a deal of anxiety and increasing the anxiety through banter/attack/insults may overwhelm the person too. There is definitely a goldilocks zone for emotions in each given situation, where too little will prevent action and too much will incur the same.

[Worlok]

From what I can tell, it is competitive and is not an intelligent action/reaction, but is instinctual; a survival tactic. Another man's ability to take a hit and hit back just as hard, either physically or verbally tests them while also garnering respect for their capabilities. More specifically, you will surround yourself with the superior aspect of the herd to raise your own chance of survival. You also test each other like rivals. Alphas will obviously do this more than betas, while betas back down. Dogs and big cats do this in their litters. Rough play among various species of cubs establishes a hierarchy of authority very early as well as in competition for the mother's tit. Pack animals all go through this, even the females compete for the alpha and you end up with alpha females as well.

 

Perjoratives such as, "fag," "faggot," "homo," etc. are primarily used to attack another man's masculinity. For people that actually hate gay people, it's about being gay. For everybody else, it's manliness. Gays typically are dominated by other men. There is the aspect that we tend to refuse to acknowledge... being dominated by another man is never manly let alone sexually dominated, but sexually dominating another man is very masculine. Greeks didn't see people as gay or straight. They looked at the position one was in. The man's position and the woman's position. The woman's position is not masculine and is for betas. Alphas obviously take the man's position of doing the penetrating, whether it's with another man, boy, or woman. It's all about the masculinity and status of the person.

 

If you can't take insults and fire back, then it's because you are weak. We can see it and we don't respect your ability. If we have to leave somebody alone to die, it's going to be you. We are going to kick you around and you will probably never raise very high in your career because every steps on you.

 

Considering that humans and some other animals are capable of empathy, this tendency to compete does not simply push us to pick on meek individuals. Most of us can understand you are a little bitch, that you aren't competition, but you are also a person with feelings and possibly value to society, so we keep it to ourselves. 

 

It all stems from survival, power, and ultimately breeding tactics. It doesn't always culminate in name calling, but that's what you are inquiring aboot.

[MysterionMuffles]

I think this video cracks the code between insults and harmless jokes