You stated some men have female brains. — Malcolm Parry

This is a point I touched on earlier. The average person tends to be uncultured, dumb, basically borderline deficient, and so much more. To these people, anything intelligent, emotional, or refined—despite actually being above them—their decrepit minds have to consider it as being beneath them so as to function "normally." Ergo, they consider anything that isn't lowbrow, primal, and animalistic (violent or destructive ie. demolition derbies, MMA fights, etc.) as "weird" or "not normal" or "non-masculine" ie. "feminine."

And the people in charge—who actually enjoy all of the refined things—simply say "Yeah, sure. Whatever you say." Because dumb people are easily controlled by dumb things. They'd rather the average person never pick up a book or question their life choices; it makes for better more compliant slaves. If you don't know you're a fly in a bottle, you'll never attempt to escape from it. From cradle to grave under a blanket of ignorance and self-delusion. People complain when the ruling class get richer or burden the working class with an unpopular change in policy, then they go watch football or an MMA match and forget about it an hour later until the next manufactured social issue is selected.

And the thing is, they're truly happier this way. The people in charge are—at the end of the day—giving the people what they want, happiness. Despite the cost behind it. Thinking hurts for them. Or at least cultured things are mind-numbingly boring. The average layperson's mind simply isn't equipped (or at least isn't wired) to process or understand the finer things in life we enjoy so naturally, so they'll call it "girly" or "feminine" (by which they mean "beneath them", again despite it being clearly the opposite) so as to maintain their ego and sense of purpose. Part hedonistic treadmill, part "the mind will believe anything if it makes it happy" ie. psychological homeostasis.

So, yeah. A great many people refer to people with intelligence, who like intelligent things over low brow activities are first, statistically "odd" or "uncommon", which the ego of the layperson of course assumes themself to be the perfect "man" (or "woman"), therefore, it would only logically follow, that makes this "uncommon" mind "feminine", since they don't like the things they do. Basically, someone's wrong or missing out on life. "Is it me? Nah, it must be that other guy. He's just weird/feminine." This is how the ego and average mind works. Is it logical? Just ask them. To them, it's no different than 2 + 2 = 4.

An organism feels. — Punshhh

I once watched a documentary on a child with CIP (congenital insensitivity to pain). While fascinating, it was tragic. Apparently the kid would run into walls and not realize they were severely hurting themself, resulting in innumerable medical visits and related costs.

Point being, just because that human being is unable to "feel" (yet does have the "hardware" per se to) and another living being that is also unable to feel (and does not have the necessary "hardware), do you see the connection? I can't prove it, and admittedly, I probably wouldn't want to go out on a limb suggesting otherwise, but it was discovered that plants communicated by what was previously undetectable means only semi-recently. Who knows what other secrets and untold truths may exist beyond the thin veil, the tiny tip of an iceberg, that is human understanding.

Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? :chin:

New word installed. @Jamal should appreciate this one. I think.

(Note if you want to make it more difficult you can choose to view or not view the hint)

Hint:

Scurrilous? — L'éléphant

Take your prize and get out. Jk :razz:

:party: Winner! The currently selected word was SCURRILOUS! :party:

It took you (0) full word OR single letter guesses to claim victory.

New word incoming.

Okay, the real guess is a letter included above: R — Dawnstorm

Yes! There are (2) instances of the letter "R" in the currently selected word.

S _ _ R R _ _ _ _ S

Unfortunately I no longer have any hints due to the fact someone "R"-ready got it. :wink:

Accusing me of getting personal when you interpret being called wrong as a rejection of all that was and ever will be of your person - is a bit rich. — Tzeentch

Again, there's no "me" or "you" as far as this debate is concerned. There's ideals, truths (Uppercase and lowercase), and underlying realities (yes plural, or perhaps meta-realities that apply wholly and fully to certain spheres and sectors of the population and not others thus earning the distinction).

Allow me to illustrate this right proper. Answer this question, if you can.

If the laws in your country state drug dealers are to be shot. And you discover your one and only son is currently selling some low level drug he and his friends managed to get their hands on after watching a movie that glorified drug dealing (Scarface, for example). Are you going to shoot him? Yes or no. That will reveal all that needs to be revealed about this particular debate (and since you're so interested in the concept, personal character as well!).

This is obviously a pointless conversation. — Tzeentch

I don't think so. I enjoy our interactions, even if our beliefs and values happen to be polar opposites. I don't think they are. Not really. And even still, what does it matter in the grand scheme of things really? Perhaps it's due to the isolated nature of my work that I find nearly any intelligent interaction a rarity, a sort of joy in and of itself. Perhaps not. :smile:

Alas, your disinclination to ultimately "say" such was rightfully heeded. Though I appreciate your solicitous nature as far as eagerness to participate :wink:

Scandalous? — Mikie

That is not the specific given word.

If not, I guess the letter A — Mikie

Also, no, the letter "A" is not present in the 10-letter given word.

Though, as a semi-hint, perhaps those who are accused of this word might suggest " 'A', no I'm not!"" As is generally the sentiment of those who tend to be called the word in question.

but it seems that homosexual men have brain structures that resemble both male and female brain structures. — Philosophim

Right here we go with the fallen world logic. The "average man" is, historically, for all intent and purpose, a monster. A horrific abomination that failed to evolve. An existential threat to not only the world but life itself. This is evidenced by his petty wars, his illogically unappreciative nature, his petulant jealousies, his psychotic and hypocritical delight in all that he would find detestable if done to himself (violent and destructive forms of entertainment he sacrifices valuable resources crucial to his own life to even view) and above all, his unwarranted existential conflict with seemingly everything, including (if not mostly) himself.

How do we know how mankind was truly meant to have evolved? What would have brought us into a golden age of peace and enlightened society, that wasn't cut short by unfortunate packets of those who value brawn over brain. Packets that should have died out long ago that have now become the majority of the population, overtaking the world. This... excuse of a being we call the average man. We don't. Not really. We just assume because "it happened it's what was supposed to happen." A form of deterministic slavery.

Maybe we've reached a new term in science called "existential exodus" where due to the technology and innovation (likely introduced by the atypical ie. more evolved mind) and it's that these mindless brutes are controlling women with edginess, shortsightedness, fear, and above all violence, so that they themselves don't die out (which how can you blame them for trying) and so the real and proper future of advanced men, who are yes intelligent (which inherently applies an enhanced ability to connect with emotion ie. being more emotional) are left without mates (because being "smart" is "uncool") so they have little choice but to think that they're gay. When in reality, the so-called "normal" man is the "odd one out" who should be the one not reproducing, who has equal tendencies, if not greater, but has been able to convince the reproductive pool otherwise. This is why they hate educated women. Because educated women will only produce with men who advance the virtue and value of humanity.

That I'd believe. In fact I can prove it on paper, as far as who makes what inventions and who clings to them versus their own devices. So that's just science at this point. No big deal. So the question, do we look forward to an enlightened future of humanity and ensure the enlightened and intelligent surpass the outdated, self-destructive so-called "alpha" male? Or do we just let the world go to Hell? There's two options. And if you're not on the side that invented nuclear weapons and mathematics, over the side that has nothing but violence, fear, and weapons featuring a rock attached to a stick. You've made your own grave.

The biggest thing is also the greatest challenge. Educating women. Historically, women are victims of abuse. Rape, slavery, etc. The smartest stock (unless simultaneously blessed with beauty) didn't live very long, and if so wasn't matched with equal intelligence, simply brute force, so that basically counted out any intelligence in any conceivable offspring. That's just a fact provable on paper. So there's work to do, if one wants to undo the insidious death spiral that is the current course of human reproduction.

One 'them' made 2 comments in the derogatory - that my post is creepy and then followed up that it is disgusting. — unimportant

Oh, okay. We refer to people whose gender is unknown and impolite to assume as "they." Yes, I do that too! My mistake. Sorry about that. Carry on. And relax! It's the Lounge. Have a drink, get comfortable. We're not going anywhere. :smile:

Though in the future, a simple "that person" might suffice. I was concerned since you had previously mistakenly mentioned my post as something derogatory, thus priming my expected use of "they" to include multiple persons as opposed to it's actual use. An understandable misunderstanding. As it were. :grin:

That seems a very charitable appraisal of them calling my post creepy. — unimportant

Them? I see one post that mentions anything of the sort. Are you seeing double? People pile things on yes. But, many a time, it is but our own mind that plays tricks on us. Per past experience, of course. No shame. We all have our horror stories. However, one ought wish to make a fine distinction, a point of remembrance, a baseline of reality, when the illusions of one's own mind is made so glaringly evident.

S — Mikie

Yes! There are (2) occurrences of the letter "S" in the currently selected word.

S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S

Snake eyes! Well, at least a letter commonly associated with such happens to both start and end the given word.

I think there's a view you're not considering — Jamal

Oh I'm absolutely sure of that. This is the Lounge after all. I enjoy taking my thinking cap off here, if that's alright.

I mean the view that sees the idea that sex is dirty or that the animal in us is something to be ashamed of or to transcend—that this idea itself is what is offensive, rather than sex or the "bestial". In other words, it is disgusting that people find sex disgusting. — Jamal

Right, that's not quite what I was getting at. Different strokes for different folks. However, if one has what a thinking society might consider an irrational (that is to say, what should be irrational due to the heavy contrast of what intelligence, restraint, and pursuit of higher [to some, "lofty"] ideals have produced) fixation or perhaps even obsession with the lowest levels of the human experience, well, perhaps one ought listen and hear out the opposing party. Again, the people who chastise or outright condemn the values that brought about everything said condemning people use everyday don't really have a right to turn around and say "oh that's nice that it gave me everything I use and take for granted, but now I'm going to talk down about it as something I don't need" when in reality it gave them everything they have. That's what I feel many people can rightfully pose an issue toward.

Perhaps it can be likened to eating. Everyone eats, they have to. We wouldn't be alive without eating. But when someone just can't control themself to the point it starts to negatively affect not only their own life but that of others (specifically others who can control, or perhaps simply do value concepts such as restraint and planning, and as such want neither deserve no part of the burden that those who cannot). I mean, there has to be a limit to over-indulgence and what is socially-acceptable as far as inflicting your willful lack of restraint (and resulting detriment) on unsuspecting upstanding members of society if they can easily make the choice not to. There's a limit to how much burden and moral degradation (and resulting social detriment) the average person should reasonably bear, especially in the context of anything possibly detrimental or likely to cause degradation being wholly and perhaps even easily avoidable.

But anyhow. Perhaps the OP's underlying sentiment can be likened to how coal (a crude, dirty material) is the only way that results in diamonds (highly valued and generally clean and pure material) from otherwise violent, messy, and mindless forces.

The thanks is appreciated. Frankly I didn't think this thread would come this far. :chin:

New word, and it's one of my favorites. Learned it from TPF, actually. See the OP for the hint. I suppose I'll post it here. It's not the best description but adequate enough, especially for thinking minds.

Hint: One would hope to avoid their philosophical argument being labeled as (or consisting of) [this word] remarks.

10 letters. Go!

Clearheaded? — Mikie

:party: Winner! The currently specified word was CLEARHEADED! :party:

It took you (1) full worded guess and (1) single letter guess to claim victory.

Congratulations! If only I had something to give you other than my utmost genuine satisfaction and praise. (I might have a $50 Amazon digital gift card laying around somewhere from last year, but what are material goods when it comes to the true value of existence that is human appreciation, am I right?)

New word incoming.

A? — Mikie

Yes! There are (2) occurrences of the letter "A" in the currently specified word.

_ _ E A _ _ E A _ E _

You just might have this one in the bag, "A?" :wink:

I found it disgusting and I expressed that feeling. — T Clark

Of course, because it shows what an animal who laps at the bosom of primal lust without any deep meaning really is. His is a scathing commentary on how humanity has failed to evolve. That despite all our machines and pleasantries we still value that which the animals value first and foremost, much like the same.

Some might have the self-respect and dignity to admit, yes, there are faults we have personally that should be exposed so as to result in a better society and state of mankind.

Again this bandwagoning is what I see far too much on other forums. As soon as one negative post comes, others seem to get their courage and pile on. — unimportant

To be fair mine was written well in advance. And it was funny. The classic "everything's fine" in a situation where it's clearly not. You have people in this thread who relate to you and validate your premise(s), and you have those who don't. What more do you want? :chin:

Sure, I don't actually think it's the "best thread on TPF" but the fact that some people see that remark as wry humor (that's what it is: gentle, lighthearted absurdity not vindictive mockery or belittlement) addresses a common sentiment that does no good in ignoring or acting like the people (a majority) who hold it are inherently incorrect or out of touch, no?

Though, I do see your point. I withheld that remark not because I thought it was offensive but because it was non-serious. Whereas once a serious (potentially offensive) remark was made, I offered mine so as to lighten the mood with wry humor. This should have made you feel better and more confident in the face of the other person's more serious critique.

The Lounge is supposed to be a lighthearted place. It takes two to tango when it comes to negativity. So perhaps one might ask who it really is who isn't playing fair. :wink:

I don't know. I'm out of steam. Over to someone else. — Jamal

Well, when you recover, you'll be what this word is.

e — Jamal

As usual my own generosity is my own undoing. :wink:

Yes! There is not only (1) but (3) instances of the letter "E" in the currently selected word.

_ _ E _ _ _ E _ _ E _

Don't cheat now. Use your own head and immediate memory. You're only robbing yourself and your own experience if you use AI or look it up!

Ah, it's intelligent. — Jamal

Another synonym, yet not the currently selected word. Both your full-word guesses so far are "what one could or perhaps hope to aspire to be" as a result of the word. It's somewhat of a requirement to reach any of your full-word guesses.

Why not go back to an individual letter guess? There are two pairs of commonly used letters in it.

Enlightened. — Jamal

That's an impressive guess. And possibly a synonym of the word. Arguably one must be [this word] as a prerequisite to become enlightened.

o — Jamal

The letter "O" is not present in the currently selected word, unfortunately. If it were anyone else I'd have to punch your ticket as far as consecutive guesses. :wink:

As a free hint, a person typically verbally expresses "O" when they reach this state of mind (the word).

s — Jamal

The letter "S" is not present in the currently selected word, no. However, as an additional free hint, the word (or concept) is the "s"-ense of effective philosophy. That is to say, a person would or should ideally be in this state of mind to engage effectively in not only philosophy but anything else, preferably.

The letter "P" is not present in the currently selected word, no. However, as a free hint, the word (or concept) might only be possible if someone "does not have p".

In a sentence, it's a phenomena of the mind, chiefly pattern recognition or seeing the cohesion (similarity) that all machinations of this world (biotic and abiotic) have in common, typically followed by allowing desire, ambition, and imagination (and above all, ego) to supersede logic, truth, and reality (humbleness) that somehow since we are able to see (what we assume to be all) similarities between these things, it elevates us above all that is around us, to the level of a god (or god-infused being). Ordinarily a simple, natural background process of the mind or ego that some instead choose to embrace or elevate as something above the stresses, conditions, predicaments, traumas, conniptions, and strife that are commonplace in the average daily life as it were a "higher" or "truer" reality of it's own merit. And if it works for them, why not let it.

The problem is this is based on a relative non-fixed "idea" versus a solid, absolute entity (a "god") and so is inevitably less reliable (ie. "effective") as far as mental homeostasis and the resulting peace and purpose of actual theistic religion. I've found many people who are "spiritual" without believing in any sort of higher power (theism) are usually ticking time bombs as far as implosion of self-grandeur and.delusion when rubber meets the road. A false mental sanctuary that often leads not to resolution and acceptance of issues and the ills in this world and one's life but repression of them. Which is never good. No, not for very long. For those who believe in neither and simply seek an "end result" analysis as to which is more "effective" as far as observable and measurable purpose.

At least, that's how it is for most people I've come across and especially observed for a given period who proclaim fellowship in such. And I'm a staunch theist, just for context.

I had this reply as a saved draft, but originally decided not to post it due to it seeming "spammy" or non-genuine. But in light of @T Clark's scathing analysis I now feel it slightly more appropriate:

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. :up:

Or maybe we just take things at face value. He wanted banning, he asked for banning, and he got banning. — Hanover

Right. That's not only my but the general sentiment of the active participants in this thread at this time.

We're not impossible to reach out to, so if he pleads temporary insanity and wants to return, we can consider it then. — Hanover

Mm, that's not what I've been made aware of.

See the "official rules" thread, specifically this stipulation:
"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."

No, that’s the gambler’s fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy — Michael

If your life depended on a person flipping a coin a million times in a row. Would you rather be killed if the person ended up flipping heads or tails one time OR only if the person flipped the same result each of those millions times?

Why is that? :chin:

Would you say the same thing about the gambling addict who avoids casinos? — Leontiskos

No, because that's proof they're treating the root issue by avoiding the problem by using their own willpower. The dynamic you mentioned (or someone mentioned) was to make some other force or entity other than one's self entirely responsible for the individual avoiding something they claim to have a problem controlling or utilizing responsibly, thus removing what is the only true solution (willpower) from the equation entirely. A literal world of difference.

All this over someone who literally said, word-for-word "I want to be banned." :rofl:

What a caring community! :heart:

I have an idea—why don’t we close out this thread for now. It’s getting sort of personal. — T Clark

While that may be a good idea, it should be mentioned that bannings are inherently personal. Are they not? :smile:

Note: I didn't mean to suggest that anything in my last post applies to the recently banned user personally, it was simply a reply to the general idea of a "self-banning" as far as those with a compulsion to use, anything really, but specifically technology, irresponsibly.

Honestly, I think there needs to be a "right to self-ban" when it comes to technology, given its addictive nature. Additionally, computers, phones, and tablets should be required by law to include the ability to self-limit oneself. — Leontiskos

Metaphorical band-aid on a wound that ultimately requires something else. Couldn't hurt, sure. In fact it might even help, until people start to think such a transient and short-lived remedy solved it and so don't make any reasonable attempt to actually address the deeper, underlying root issue, of course. :brow:

I know, I'm upset too, javi. Arguably I was upset already and it had nothing to do with this banning. But the now-banned user was not only quite clear but quite insistent as well. There is little to be upset at, I fear.

I suppose there's simply not very many fresh faces around these parts lately. I admired the new energy is all, objectionable as it was, it was a challenge, I suppose. Something to correct or understand, if nothing else. And really now, would philosophy itself even exist if no such things were ever present? Riddle me that someday. :wink:

Either way I trust in every staff member's judgement. Not just by position bias but by personal immersion in the character one can reasonably derive from their input here.

I do recall personally his "please ban me" thread. I just considered that online spontaneity. A simple overreaction. Remember not everyone has been here so long as to have respect for the place as something different from opening up a random website on one's phone one day while bored. Some folk see this amazing venue, made solely possible only by the staff of course, as something rare not only in their own lives but even as far as most common "places" online. To some, this may be like an outlet, an escape, a sanctuary if you will, where, no perhaps we don't fully appreciate for what it is, but we appreciate it enough for as it is to become.. comfortable, perhaps. And in comfort we reveal our true selves, the good, the bad, and everything in between.

I have read the posts where he did request a ban, twice. Yes. However. And this is the "gotcha." No where can i recall did he request a "permanent" ban. So, he could have merely been referring to what is known here as "a suspension", which and yes, is effectively a ban for a given period, remains a unique request.

Ah well. What's the gent have to do anyway if he had a strong objection? Wait 60 days until the new forum launches? :lol:

Blamed? — Banno

Held accountable for something the individual believed they played no role in or otherwise a state of being or mind that would have been even if same "blamee" (person blamed) was never ever born. Perhaps. Is what the chap means. It's a common viewpoint, unfortunately. No reason not to try and understand the mindset of such in their own words, no?

He's an adult who told us what he wanted. — Michael

What proof do you have of any of this? Even if legal proof is available (which it's not). You would still have no idea that his understanding of the things you consider the boundaries of fact and fiction are the same as what you consider standard.

Like a ripple in a pool of dark. We splash upon what we see, never knowing what it may reach, or what affect it may truly have.

Admit it. You just wanted to blow off the steam you couldn't elsewhere. Go on, no shame.

whatever the opposite of Luddites is — Jamal

Technophile.

1, 4, 5 and 6, though? — bongo fury

(As a reminder these are the relevant items of @Jamal's stipulated usages of AI):
1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
4. AI Bot
5. Post Editing Assistant
6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete

I suspect a handful of posters use these already. Perhaps to mitigate surface-level typographical errors arising from the designated language of this forum not being their first or "primary" language.

So, effectively, though it might encourage a few people who would otherwise not use AI, it likely will only be used by people who use AI anyway.

Do I think it's necessary? Of course not. Would I prefer it be turned off altogether? Maybe maybe not. I just wouldn't use it, and those who metaphorically want to ride bikes with the rest of us with their training wheels on probably shouldn't be belittled for it. Lightheartedly ribbed perhaps, but little more. After all, there is much I don't know about even basic concepts of philosophy so I may even find 1. (AI Summaries) of particular use. Who knows. Though the option to disable/hide any and all "appearances" of it personally to the individual user, is something I hope is a switchable option.

I can find it being noteworthy to point out the seemingly shifting attitude toward AI from the highest levels of TPF. Though perhaps this was in resignation and begrudging acceptance (similar to climate change) rather than an old-fashioned "change of heart." :smile:

You could (if that were the case) try a "Luddites' Corner", for people preferring specifically human to human dialectic? — bongo fury

I don't imagine @Jamal being on board with this. Despite it sounding conceptually interesting. What would it categorically represent? Wouldn't it just divide discussions away from their intended category into an effective "second Lounge?" :chin: