fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3014 ]

[ SECRET POST #3014 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3014 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

20. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

23.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 130 secrets from Secret Submission Post #431.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Like Visp, you're just spouting off cliches without evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry, I would have assumed "humans are greedy by nature" is a commonly accepted observation of the human condition. In order to not be greedy people we have to actively work at it, and even then the vast majority of people are still greedy to some degree. We don't like to part from our possessions or money. If you need evidence, just look at capitalism. It's entirely driven by greed. If people were satisfied to just have what they need, they wouldn't keep extorting the working class for more and more money just to inflate their already-gigantic bank account.

And where did I mention the word industrialization?

You didn't. I mentioned it and never claimed that you did. But in your against Visp's critique of anarcho-communism, you compared it to capitalism as a major defense, as though capitalism were the only alternative. My point is that it's not, and Visp wasn't necessarily thinking of it as the only alternative when they criticized anarcho-capitalism.

Once again, you spout banalities about things without providing any real evidence. You don't seem to understand that there are actual studies done on this sort of thing, and that "greedy" behavior and attitude towards greed varies greatly just by culture alone.

You live in a capitalist society. You don't even seem to realize that that society has been indoctrinated with all sorts of propaganda and weird morals about greed and materialism from an early age. You didn't', for a second, consider that the attitudes on greed you're talking about could be a result of environmental factors instead of something innate.

You're mixing up cause and effect: you automatically think that because our society is greedy and pro-greedy that greed is some powerful innate trait of humans. You don't consider that maybe people have just been sold a bunch of creepy social Darwinist crap about greed and dog-eat-dog mentality to make it seem overwhelmingly natural.

It seems to have worked. You don't even look for evidence, in biology, psychology, or cultural studies, you just buy that greed is an innate, natural, driving force, to such an extent that you think everyone else believes that too.

There are studies suggesting that no, greed is not the innate, natural unavoidable driving force you suggest it is. Here's an article that goes over some studies: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/24/grotesque-inequality-greed-human-nature-capitalism

But in your against Visp's critique of anarcho-communism, you compared it to capitalism as a major defense, as though capitalism were the only alternative. My point is that it's not, and Visp wasn't necessarily thinking of it as the only alternative when they criticized anarcho-capitalism.

Maybe you need to step back and assess the situation next time before you go wading in to fight battles against straw. There was no "major defense" because I don't defend anarcho-communism as a viable system. Visp didn't "criticize" anarcho-anything--she spewed a bunch of worthless, meaningless cliches, and *that* is what I was challenging.

Ah, I see. So she got on your nerves, and you decided to argue against her for...no other real reason?

You don't seem to understand that there are actual studies done on this sort of thing

No because I've never heard of any such studies. Do you always mock unintentional ignorance? (Thanks for the link, though.)

You don't even look for evidence, in biology, psychology, or cultural studies

I'm not sure if general observations about biology and evolution would count to you, but actually hoarding resources is pretty beneficial to one's survival.

Edited 2015-04-06 03:15 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So she got on your nerves, and you decided to argue against her for...no other real reason?

Wow, I see you just have an overall tendency to jump to conclusions, don't you? It's not a matter öf nerves--if I see someone lying, spreading misinformation, relying on generalizations, relying on cliches, or using faulty logic, I try to call them on it.

No because I've never heard of any such studies. Do you always mock unintentional ignorance? (Thanks for the link, though.)

If you somehow thought that here had never been any psychological studies done on greed, that's even worse. That would mean you were knowingly spreading information that you believed had no existing evidence to support it.

I'm not sure if general observations about biology and evolution would count to you, but actually hoarding resources is pretty beneficial to one's survival.

There are a variety of survival behaviors that have their individual benefits, risks, and downsides. Evolutionary biology is complex, and whipping out some simple generalization isn't particularly useful. If you don't have an in-depth knowledge, leave it alone, instead of trotting out some overly simplified generalization like they teach in K-12.

If you somehow thought that here had never been any psychological studies done on greed, that's even worse. That would mean you were knowingly spreading information that you believed had no existing evidence to support it.

I never heard of any studies specifically supporting the idea that greed is socialized. Happy?

The generalization that hoarding resources improves survival + anecdotal evidence of greed existing in pretty much every society in human history is what I was going for. Of course there are a variety of traits that are helpful to human survival; you could make the argument that compassion/empathy developed the same way. Those are not mutually exclusive.

You know, it's not that you're disagreeing and even actually backing your shit up that's the problem. It's that you're a huge smug colossal motherfucker that's the problem. Quit being such an asshole, fuck.

You know, if I'm wrong nonny, quote the flawed sentence and call out my incorrectness.

Edited 2015-04-06 03:42 (UTC)

DID YOU EVEN READ THE COMMENT? IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE RIGHT OR WRONG

YOU ARE A FUCKING ASSHOLE ABOUT IT

If you could point out what I said that was so bad, I would appreciate it.

Really, it's the whole tone of your posts. You barge in out of nowhere with this "ha ha i'm smarter than you plebes" attitude and it just makes you screamingly unlikable.

Some examples:

Those are just clever little sophistic comments that don't really mean anything.

That is literally the first thing you said. Was that really necessary? No, not really, you just go straight for the throat and treat Visp like she's a fucking idiot and you're the Great Intellectual Savior here to rescue us from our ignorance.

So once you've set the tone for the rest of the thread, you go on to say this:

Bullshit. Like Visp, you're just spouting off cliches without evidence to back it up.

Another snipe on Visp for the crime of... being wrong by your perspective?

You know, discussion/debate doesn't have to be a competition and you don't "win" by being a jerk.

Once again, you spout banalities about things without providing any real evidence.

Look how this is worded. Do you honestly think you're being polite and reasoned? Because you're not. Here, I'll rewrite that for you: "But that doesn't really mean anything and you're not providing evidence for it." That is a complete 180 in tone. No personal attacks, no subtle jabs. Just "that's not really a good answer though." It treats the other person with more respect and, even if (you think) they're wrong, doesn't rob them of a dignified, polite discussion.

Maybe you need to step back and assess the situation next time before you go wading in to fight battles against straw. There was no "major defense" because I don't defend anarcho-communism as a viable system. Visp didn't "criticize" anarcho-anything--she spewed a bunch of worthless, meaningless cliches, and *that* is what I was challenging.

The problem with this one is that it basically boils down to "someone is wrong on the internet and I have to be a huge douche to prove it." No, you really don't. You're just stroking your ego at this point.

I have to ask, are you okay? I've interacted with you in the past and you were never, ever this much of a shithead. Did something happen? Do you need like professional help, maybe?

That is literally the first thing you said. Was that really necessary? No, not really, you just go straight for the throat and treat Visp like she's a fucking idiot and you're the Great Intellectual Savior here to rescue us from our ignorance.

I really do feel like that was necessary. Cliches aren't evidence. You can't use "All is fair in love and war" like it's evidence in a discussion on POW treatment. You can't rely on vague "this is human nature!!!" explanations to support an idea. Not without being willing to back it up with more specificity (ex: "I was referring to confirmation bias in humans").

Another snipe on Visp for the crime of... being wrong by your perspective?

For Visp to be wrong she would have had to have an actual argument. Like I said, she was simply spouting meaningless cliches.

You know, discussion/debate doesn't have to be a competition and you don't "win" by being a jerk.

It's not a competition. There is no way to "win" a discussion (other than by personal values and goals for what one wants from the discussion). But there is logic in the world, and evidence, and if people aren't prepared to use either, then they shouldn't be surprised when people call them on the lack of support for their statements.

Look how this is worded. Do you honestly think you're being polite and reasoned? Because you're not. Here, I'll rewrite that for you: "But that doesn't really mean anything and you're not providing evidence for it." That is a complete 180 in tone. No personal attacks, no subtle jabs. Just "that's not really a good answer though." It treats the other person with more respect and, even if (you think) they're wrong, doesn't rob them of a dignified, polite discussion.

I do agree your version is more polite and easier for the other person to swallow. It is not without issue though. Dietpoison did not understand that the cliches she was using did not constitute evidence in themselves. She believed that her personal assumptions about human nature could be used as evidence. It had to be made clear that cliches are not evidence. "You need to use evidence" isn't good enough when the person thinks they *are* using evidence.

The problem with this one is that it basically boils down to "someone is wrong on the internet and I have to be a huge douche to prove it." No, you really don't. You're just stroking your ego at this point.

Once again, it wasn't about Visp being wrong, because Visp's overall point (anarcho-communism cannot be realized) is not something I actually disagree with. My issue is that cliches aren't evidence. If I see someone on my own "side" using poor logical practices I'll call them on it. I don't see the harm in that: in fact, I think that is a really good thing. People should call out poor logic and false statements, even when they're in support of their own opinions.

I have to ask, are you okay? I've interacted with you in the past and you were never, ever this much of a shithead. Did something happen? Do you need like professional help, maybe?

Not sure if genuine or concern trolling. No, nothing has happened. I am simply a person without a filter. I say what I think most of the time, and have a hard time doing otherwise. If I wasn't being a "shithead" to you it was probably because you were using good reasoning and making valuable contributions and so I had nothing to criticize you on.

Edited 2015-04-06 04:36 (UTC)

nayrt

like

I actually completely agree with you (the "Marxism or communism or etc is flawed because incompatible with human nature" argument is a bugaboo of mine that i've railed against in the past) but you are, in fact, posting like a dickhead

I am simply a person without a filter. I say what I think most of the time, and have a hard time doing otherwise.

this is actually a spectacularly bad line to take in interpersonal communication, and often (again) leads one to act like a total dickhead. please stop being a dickhead. thanks.

this is actually a spectacularly bad line to take in interpersonal communication, and often (again) leads one to act like a total dickhead. please stop being a dickhead. thanks.

If you think it's something I'm saying as an adopted stance ("Hurr I'm just gonna say whatever I think!") it's not. It's not a conscious choice, and it's something I've been working against for a long time. I've gotten a lot better at self-censorship in the last few years, and it's something I actively strive toward.

Unfortunately, a lot of times I still find myself halfway through a conversation and realize I haven't been filtering.

well, fair enough, i guess. it certainly read as though you were valorizing that way of doing things (especially in the context of your many other posts on this comm)

I've gotten a lot better at self-censorship in the last few years, and it's something I actively strive toward.

If this is you exercising self-control, I'm scared to think of what you must have been like a few years ago. Either way, though, you are definitely extremely unpleasant and I actually feel a little creeped out by you.

I'm sorry to hear that nonny.

It's less that you don't filter, and more that you act like an ass to other commenters. For example, your way of 'arguing' is showing others how you're completely right and they're wrong. I don't think you're a bad person, but I can see how you can make people here annoyed at you. :/

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-04-06 15:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-06 18:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-04-06 19:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-06 19:21 (UTC) - Expand

I am simply a person without a filter.

So in other words you're an asshole and proud of it. Good to know.

Your entire rest of your post is basically a justification for acting like a shithead because omg some1 is RONG on the intrnets~

I don't know why I thought I could get through to you that you are, in fact, unlikable. Do you even have any friends? Or are you too fucking smart for everyone?

So in other words you're an asshole and proud of it. Good to know.

Nope. I'm just not ashamed of it. We all have our issues and flaws and all we can do is work to improve on them.

I don't know why I thought I could get through to you that you are, in fact, unlikable. D

Oh, *now* who's being patronizing? You assume I don't know I'm generally unlikeable. I do know that I am--I can see the evidence.

Do you even have any friends?

Yep! I'm definitely not for everyone, but I'm still compatible with some wonderful people ♥

Nope. I'm just not ashamed of it. We all have our issues and flaws and all we can do is work to improve on them.

This doesn't make any sense to me. We ALL have flaws, and generally people are at least a little bit ashamed when their flaws hurt others. I know I am.

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-04-06 17:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-06 22:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-04-06 23:05 (UTC) - Expand

So you're not ashamed of the fact you're fucking annoying and incredibly rude to other people? Good for you.

Ever notice how the phrase "I have no filter" is always the precursor to someone saying something asshole-ish? Like, you never hear of people going "Hi, random internet stranger. I'm sending you thoughts of puppies and kitties and sunny cloudless skies! oh, btw, I have no filter!"

No, it's always the reason given for why someone is being an asshole and making douchebag sorts of comments.

Edited 2015-04-06 13:56 (UTC)

Ever notice how the phrase "I have no filter" is always the precursor to someone saying something asshole-ish?

That's kind of an ironic statement to make given that "I have no filter" was actually the last statement in the comment I made, so it wasn't the precursor at all.

"Precursor" was not a good word choice but you are using it as justification, which I take it as basically what quirkytizzy meant.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only