would rather a guy buy me breakfast and tell me he is only doing it because he knows I like porridge and wants to shag me later. — TimeLine

Note to self...

Valentines Day reeks of globalisation. It is economics — TimeLine

I mean, whatevs. Valentines Day is just Valentines day and you can celebrate it with an obligatory box of chocolates or not. If it pisses you off for some great big serious reason, then fine, the guy can pour some gruel all over you and bang away. Pouring the gruel on you was my idea.

There are real ways of loving someone and expressing that love and Valentine's Day is not one of them. — TimeLine

Says you. Maybe I've had some lovely Valentine's Days that I didn't overthink and turn into a day of Marxist revolution.

I understand that but these special conditions that make this love and bond authentic has nothing to do with society or other people. It is distinct and personal. The contributions that are required is a mutual understanding, that deeper love and inner need to have that person near them as well as trust. Love is not an enlarged egotism where one loves only because they are loved, neither is it forming attachments and feeling dependent because of a deeper loneliness and fear of being alone. — TimeLine

This is very romantic and lovely actually (and I'm not being sarcastic), but it is very idealistic and may not really reflect the goings on in a long term relationship or marriage. A lot of love is what happens among spouses, close friends, and family members where there's a lot of day to day stuff where all these lofty ideals really aren't so much considered, and it's perfectly fine to admit to yourself that your attachment to someone isn't just loving affection. Your views are like a Disney movie. If that was mean, I take it back.

“When considering marriage one should ask oneself this question; 'will I be able to talk with this person into old age?' Everything else is transitory, the most time is spent in conversation.” — TimeLine

I agree, totes, but I'd change "talk" into "bang."

There'll always be a way around it, bookheads. — Sapientia

That's why I've been in favor of having every post fully vetted through unanimous favorable voting by all mods prior to public posting, including this one, which I'd vote NAY to, so you'd never see it.

Truly awesome still.

So help us out then. Describe the fear and its origins you reference.

Social norms cultivate talents and strength in one population and spray herbicide on another. Our efforts to create more fairness may have limited success and be short term, not because we don't see the problem, or that we don't care, but that we don't have ultimate control of the social forms we inhabit. That's what I was trying to say. Do you agree with that? — frank

I agree that the unfairness is all manmade and is truly unfair. I'm not trying to suggest the man ought to drive the bus because men have that God given right. I'm just saying that if the man through no credit of his own is a better driver, I'd rather him drive. The pragmatic question is how painful we will allow the transitional period to be where we afford less qualified people to become more qualified. I think the society that invests now will be in a better position later when all its members are then as fully capable as the rest, but for those living in the here and now, it could be a painful process.

Well Edgar is an alcoholic. He's going to crash the bus into a ditch in the middle of Nowhere, whereas Melissa actually has amazing eye-hand coordination, nerves of steel, and could fly an F-15 if she wanted to. Edgar gets up because he thinks he's supposed to. Melissa sits there for the same reason. — frank

Yeah, but this attacks the hypothetical, which is that the unfair advantages afforded certain people provide them long term benefits of success. The way you've interpreted it, the social limitations are just artificial protections for power. It would seem reasonable to believe that those with wealth and influence would be afforded real advantages for success (like better schooling, better training, etc.), so I would in fact rather have a surgeon from the US than from Timbuktu. Maybe the US surgeon is a spoiled undeserving bastard, but he's still a better surgeon. But to use the US surgeon perpetuates a prejudice against Timbuktu surgeons, who, through no fault of their own are worse surgeons.

So what this is really about is Peterson. I had been thinking it was all naturalistic fallacy crap, but the post of two people in this thread have had me rethinking it. It's not about nature, although those less likely to think things through might think that. It's about patriarchy. I think at one point we thought it was a social construction and we were so smart we could just think our way out of it and create a different world. Maybe we hadn't noticed that if we think of it as a life-form, patriarchy is at least 5000 years old. Do I see signs in my world that it's dying. I've got to be honest: no, I don't. — frank

And so what is the pragmatic solution? Do you rise up and give the woman the chance to drive the bus in order to create a better future for better prepared women, or do you offer it to the man who already has been groomed for this moment and is for entirely unfair reasons better prepared for the dangerous task at hand and will provide a greater likelihood of success?

Have a think about what a theory understandable only by George would be like. Does George say "I have a theory about X but I can't explain it"? Or is the theory just word salad to us? — Banno

If you can assume on an island of 2 people that George understands something that Bob does not, regardless of how hard George tries, then you would have a theory of only 1. Bob would hear the sounds and try to understand the theory, but he couldn't. I don't understand why you find that impossible.

I don't see your point here. Are you making an empirical claim about how knowledge is acquired where it must be understandable to another person in order for it to exist? Help me out here. Is it sufficient that George be able to explain it to himself just well enough for his homunculus gets it?

I've never really seen anyone affirm definitely the fact that QM can be used to justify the concept of having a 'free will'. I have seen some refutations of the PoSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason), which is the groundrock belief upon which determinism or necessitarianism hinge upon.

So, can it be affirmatively asserted that QM affirms the concept of having a 'free will'? — Posty McPostface

The indeterminacy of QM offers nothing in explaining the contradictory nature of free will. Free will asserts both something occurring outside the causal chain as well as the agent's control, and therefore responsibility, over that event, which is to suggest a God-like property that defies explanation.

Consider if the laws of nature forced you into a Choice A, then we'd say you lacked responsibility and control over the act. Why though would you say anything differently than if your choice were determined by the flip of a coin or a truly indeterminate event?

You seem to love your role as a pompous, third-rate, unlicensed psychiatrist. It’s something you do a lot, but I think this thread was particularly egregious. I always worry someone vulnerable will take you seriously. I think what you said to TimeLine (“you still love him”) was the most disrespectful thing I ever heard said to her, and that’s saying a lot. In the good old days, she would have kicked you till you bled. You deserve to be rhetorically horsewhipped. Sorry TL, I know you don’t need me to defend you. — T Clark

Fair.

This is a philosophy forum after all. Maybe we should refocus our efforts there. I think @fdrake is partially right, but I really don't need to hear how you're really a good guy and good husband. I trust that's true and have moved on.

Let's talk about Kant or something we really don't anything about now.

Sexual relationships (as distinct from friendships) on its own is only sex and economics, thus to maximise the pleasurable and meaningful experience of sexual intimacy one must form an honest friendship, as an absence of which would make it this bleak capitalistic transaction with false "games" or social requisites (hey, i'll buy you chocolate on Valentines day, that must mean I love you :roll: ) in order to play 'house' or pretend that there is some meaning other than it being sex and economics. Friendship between two lovers makes the relationship real, it generates the conditions that produces a consciousness of ourselves and our place in the world, or what meaning and goodness is through the interpersonal experience. — TimeLine

This is an idiosyncratic idealistic view of romantic relationships that has merit but is not universal. I will acknowledge having had friendships with those I have been romantic with, but those friendships were not like non-romantic ones. Romantic relationships are complicated by deeper dependence and there is a pragmatic conditionality to them, which requires fidelity and specific contributions to continue forward. There are also firmer commitments in romantic relationships where the notion of breaking up exists in a far more real capacity than exists in non-romantic relationships, where there are less distinct beginnings and endings.

The exchange of Valentine's Day gifts is not a good example of a meaningful condition for the relationship to continue forward, and I would doubt many real relationships end for failure to remember the day. A real example would be an expectation that your partner share dinner with you on occasion, from time to time contribute to the household chores, to help care for the children, to make efforts to earn money, to not have romantic relationships with others, and so on. These contributions are both pragmatic and evidence of love and friendship because it would make sense that if one didn't help the other, the other might interpret that as uncaring. And that is precisely why a partner might be upset at not getting Valentine's Day chocolate, not because they were unable to buy as much chocolate as they wanted for themselves, but because they felt that a caring partner would remember them on a date set aside for remembering them. It is the thought that counts after all.

But the point is that all this required interaction and expectation goes far beyond what you would expect to see in a very close friendship between roommates, and it's entirely possible that a very close friendship between roommates would be a closer friendship than exists between a married couple and yet the marriage would be entirely satisfying to both.

If such threats occur in intimacy, it is unequivocally fucked up, no woman should ever feel fear of her partner, it is a bond, a connection and not a Master/Slave relationship. — TimeLine

I agree that fear is a negative emotion that shouldn't exist in a relationship, but egalitarianism need not exist in a relationship for it to be in all ways successful as long as that is consistent with the expectations of those involved. I know you didn't suggest otherwise, but there are all sorts of consensual relationships out there that appear fucked up beyond repair from my perspective, but somehow they seem to work.

No, never physical violence, but screaming, yelling, criticizing.

I have a friend who's fearful of his wife's emotional tirades, so he walks on eggshells around her. Why does he tolerate it? Some folks are just fucked up I guess. They're on to 20 years like this, so maybe this is their brand of happiness.

We can't assume the fear is rational, as it's possible this poster's wife is irrationally intimidated. We really have no evidence of anything here really.

I would think that that fear ought be addressed somewhere other than on this board in order to alleviate it, whatever the cause.

I guess they're varying degrees of acceptance, with tolerating on one end of the spectrum and embracing on the other with respect somewhere in between. All are better than rejecting and condemning.

One of the posters in this thread revealed that his wife is afraid of him and that he finds it to be common that women feel that way. — frank

I missed that. Which post is it?

No that's not normal. It's fucked up.

My ankle is driving me crazy. There is talk of putting me on crutches and some kind of cast... :fear: — Lone Wolf

Bend your ankle to where your toe touches your shin. When you hear the click-clack sound, you're all better.

B.

I'll leave it alone, but I really do see it differently.

Reread that sentence. Do you really think a guy with his attitude is going to achieve happiness that lasts forever after? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He's as capable as any of us are. It's all about finding the right person. My bigger point is that whatever his problems, they are his, and not his ex's to worry about. He'll be fine, or not, but let it go.

I'm not letting you off the hook on this one, not from what I've seen. He's a few well written paragraphs to getting back with you (or at least to getting your world spinning back out of control) although he'll never say them because he doesn't care enough to. I could recite it, but I'll spare you.

Stop romanticising this. He's not war and famine that needs your loving kindness to set straight. He's just an immature guy who broke your heart (and that is a big deal in its own right), and you want to make it right somehow in your mind. There is a word that describes the empathy and altruism you express for his well being. It's called love. And no, it's not a universal love for all of mankind you feel like you're trying to say. You don't care about your neighbor's break up like this. He's the guy on your mind.

This post sounds mean, but it's not. You sooo need to just put him out of your mind. I suspect one day you'll reread these posts and see how down in it you were.

I suppose we could be witnessing an attempt to obtain therapy to eliminate prior negative patterns, but it looks like heartache and pining to me, not resolved by analysis and obsessing, but by finding someone new.

The reality is that the antagonist in our story is better positioned for future happiness because he lacks the emotional baggage. Likely he has moved on and is well on his way to the 2 kids, picket fence, and happily ever after than what we have here.

I think most of all I was sad because I have - and still do - hold onto the hope that he would feel remorse and find the courage to be honest, which I think you showed to be impossible. It breaks my heart that he and I will never be friends. — TimeLine

You still love him. Notice the period at the end of the sentence. He occupies your thoughts. Get him out of there. He doesn't love you. Commit to dedicating as much of your day thinking about and ruminating about and writing about him as he does you. Zero.

The wallpaper, wooden chairs, cool kitschy shelf, true Americana.

You haven't explained why the theory understandable only by George is not a theory.

What word do you use to describe a true explanation that no one in the kingdom of fools (minus one) understands?

Free food, shelter, and clothing is available in capitalist countries already. If you are starving on the street and insufficiently clothed in the US, it's not due to lack of free help; it's due to your inability to figure out how to obtain it.

These are attractive men, they have muscles in places I never knew existed, popping out everywhere like a balloon full of walnuts, the type of guys who iron their shirts while they are wearing it. — TimeLine

Look at you checking out the scenery. Sounds like you were getting busy at the gym. And by "busy," I mean preggers.

In our culture here in Australia, these 'jocks' are not visibly nasty because society contains and controls their behaviour; they get tattoos, pretend to care about some charity to make themselves appear moral, paste "the thinker" type photos all over Instagram with some ridiculous quote (some women do this face where one of their drawn-on eyebrows are raised and puff up their lips with a slight nose flare and write some feigned story about self-love), and yet underlying all that remains this hostility, this sense of entitlement and superiority — TimeLine

H8r.

There is no substance, they offer nothing that is real. I did not anticipate their reaction and was genuinely surprised because my joke quoting Dracula was hilarious, but in doing so kind of revealed who they were that has thus enabled me to write this. So, no, I did not feel bad at all and they are only really nice to me because I knew more people than they thought I did and that made them look bad (society contains and controls their behaviour). — TimeLine

Either they changed their behavior towards you because they realized they had insulted Miss Australia or they simply felt bad for having made fun of the apparent teenage transsexual rocking in the corner laughing to hirmself while quoting obscure passages from 19th century literature onto an even more obscure philosophy forum.

Oh yeah, I done brung it.

Bet you got your kicks into provoking her, the type of guy who tries to make his girlfriend jelly by flirting with other women. — TimeLine

You're sounding a bit jelly yourself. I didn't know that jelly came in so many flavors.

*Files nails. — TimeLine

Look at me damn it. I'm doing funny things. Look at me!

We all can act without knowing why and in this instance you may genuinely believe that you are simply joking back, but what you are really doing is responding or reacting rather vindictively with the intent of hurting their feelings. — TimeLine

See, this is just that you don't get guy humor, having not a Johnson. Good example, I have this friend and he was accused of inappropriate conduct with a subordinate, and he was truly innocent as the facts did show, and you can imagine the stress he went through during the investigation, as he really is an upstanding guy. Let us assume his false accuser's name was Sally, and so it has been a pretty funny joke to ask him if he Sallied any more of his subordinates, and one can certainly be creative in using Sally as a verb as you might imagine. I happen to live in a glass house myself, so stones are thrown right back and me, and it's mean as shit from an outsider's perspective, but it can be crazy funny to hear someone joke about the most sensitive events in another's life. And there really is no vindictiveness. It's actually a display of friendship to have no boundaries, to make light of really heavy burdens, and to let the other person know that there is nothing to hide and be embarrassed about.

What does it say if I joke to him about Sallying others? It means I don't for a minute think he ever Sallied anyone, that the prospect of that occurring is absurd, and that he doesn't have to feel there is some hidden doubt in any of our minds that something really did happen. We're all decent folks, so we'd never joke about his having done something terrible.

If I have such support for my friend, why don't I just say it instead of hiding it in jokes, you might ask? Cuz I'm not gay.

Those guys, by the way, reacted negatively to my joke, deleted it and stopped talking to me for a while; how dare I not tell them they are beautiful, amazing people, two men doing what millions of men do in a machine called the same shit as everyone else. — TimeLine

What you don't say dear Princess is that you felt bad about what you did and so here you try to pretend they sort of deserved it. You fretted about it and kind of wished you didn't go there, but you didn't, so you try to justify it. How do I know this? Cuz I know all. What happened see is that guys react differently to girls ragging on them than when a fellow guy does it. A guy punches another guy in the arm, he can hit him back. Not so when a girl throws a punch. They thought you were telling them they were stupid and that you meant it. You prolly did. They sounded stupid. You weren't joking. You were putting them in their place. Damn straight.

They quickly regretted their reaction because I am awesome and I know a lot of people at the gym and everyone who read it thought it was funny and thought the guys were overreacting jocks, so they're all be like sniffing around me now and saying nice things about my hair and clothes, and I be like whatevs. — TimeLine

And dare it is. These jocks thought they could be smart with their philosophy and shit? Hell no. That shit is your fuzzizzle. You needed to let them know who the boss was and maybe get their attention. Now they're looking your way, so you look the other way. One of those boys is gonna catch up to you one day Miss Playa. And btw, I say you got raggedy ass clothes and musty ass clumped up whore hair, so don't think your sass is gonna change my tune.

They prolly in a bad mood. You're so sensitive. In saying that, I sometimes intentionally disregard your jokes not because I didn't laugh or I didn't find it funny, but because I cant be fucked since my only chance to be on here is late at night when I am sleepy and in bed. You're so exhausting, always 'TL TL, look at me look at me, pick me pick me" I be like whatevs. — TimeLine

So if you got this complex play book, why open it for me? Is it because your love now is so deep it's time for the big reveal or perchance you have abandoned it for a new playbook, like maybe if you talk all silly hip and drunk and shit maybe you can get Hanover to do the same. Hellz no you can't. Shit don't work wid me no way.

However, it also does open potential discussions about power-relations here, too. My dismissal of your jokes, for instance, is a type of power over you, a mode of discourse intended as a rhetorical strategy to control for my own benefit — TimeLine

There was this girl at work. I'll call her Megan because that's her name. She tole me this story after we got to know each other later on. She would walk by me in the hall and say hi to me and I'd not say hi back. She then started not saying hi and just staring at me to teach me a lesson. I still didn't respond. She thought we were in this big standoff and that she was getting the best of me. Once she got to know me, she realized I had no earthly idea of the battle that had been waging.

So what we got here apple dumpling is your having ignored me and taught me a lesson in your head, not mine. But what you did reveal is that you were responding to my jokes each and every time, hanging on my every word, but thinking you'd get more a reaction from me by being silent than by say "Oh my sweet Hanover, oh how you spin a story." Now go comb your hair.

You're video was not a joke, it was a problematic interaction just like those terrible singers who go onto a singing show and are told they are terrible singers only to flip out and start getting all defensive and attacking the judge for being a fool. It is malicious in the instance where the person does sing well but is told by a bully that they have a shit voice, just as much as it is funny when jokes are said about weirdo princesses singing to magpies. The audience is irrelevant, it is isolating the intent. — TimeLine

True, but intent is complicated because you're assuming sufficient empathy and understanding of the audience is in the equation when the joke is considered. For example, if I posted what I thought to be a serious quote with a picture of myself at the gym and a friend of mine explained to me how I misunderstood the quote, that I was a dumbass, and carried on about how I was a pompous buffoon, I might think it pretty funny. I'd then respond by insulting his children and making inappropriate comments about his wife and it would degenerate from there, with some of the insults being truly personal and abusive, making it all the more funny. My intent would always be to be funny, but some people who I might expect to get it, won't, and they'll be like "fuck you" and I'll be like "doubly fuck you" and I'll be joking, and they won't, and then no amount of splainin works.

Both you and Michael did the same thing when I chimed in about BMI age. It was not meant to be mean in anyway, but the intention is to downplay the seriousness and to expose the ridiculous. — TimeLine

Of course, because Michael tends to get it, as does Sap and Baden, but others not quite as much. So if I tell @Baden I accidently had sex with his stupid fucking dog last night thinking it was his mom, he'd respond in kind, whereas if I told some other people that, they'd be sort of pissed off, like why is this moderator telling me he fucked my dog and is insulting my mother. I'm proud of that example of a good joke, by the way.

It is malicious in the instance where the person does sing well but is told by a bully that they have a shit voice, just as much as it is funny when jokes are said about weirdo princesses singing to magpies. — TimeLine

Yes, the magpie song. I'm reminded of this:

Everything, including words, can be used as a tool to exploit the vulnerable and mockery is a type of manipulative tactic that devalues humour itself and disorients the audience and the victim without appearing responsible for the cruelty. "I was just joking!" Humour has a function for joy, but the dimensions of this function are accessed and exploited by a manipulator to coercively influence authority. Essentially, it is all about intent and our individual motives and the culture or social conditions must provide the platform that is conducive to good behaviour as much as it is responsible for the bad. There are bad people making bad jokes, but we do not eliminate jokes to eliminate the bad. We challenge the motives. — TimeLine

Perhaps, but this is over generalized and non-contextualized. It is possible the person was just joking. In The Office video posted above, those in the office were truly joking, and the real response they were looking for was for Andy to have played along, to have thrown back a figurative punch at them (not a literal punch into the wall). It was playful, non-malicious wrestling to them. To Andy, it wasn't. I'm not declaring who gets to decide the truth here, as both confidently have their perspectives, but mean humor is a thing, but it's not meant to truly be mean. It's meant to be funny. Know your audience I guess.

We have a problem, let's agree to ignore it. — fdrake

You point out here that I've advocated conflict avoidance.

it engenders a kind of agent-agent ethical decision in which one party is radically indifferent to the other; so much so that 'let's agree to disagree', in all its reasonableness, acts as a principle to ignore yourself as a thorn in another's side. When they can't, by assumption, see it like the triviality it is. Gentle ribbing is usually done precisely by people who have a broad sense of triviality in interaction, and we shouldn't let ourselves seize the middle ground purely out of our own sense of reasonableness; the tyrant (edit: or the bureaucrat) is the model of such self justification. — fdrake

A description of what it means to avoid conflict. One area where I'd disagree is that the conflict that is avoided is not wiped away as trivial, but it is avoided precisely because it's seen as critical and unresolvable. I appreciate this description might be my own neurosis, but it's nonetheless personally truthful. That is to say, if you are very leftist and I'm not, we could get along quite well as long as we made our dispute a trivial part of our relationship. That is, we must declare not to personally care about that difference because it isn't trivial. It's critical, and if we allow it to remain in the forefront of our interaction, we are not be able to get along.

I dated a very liberal woman once, and I told her that nothing she believed offended me, that she was entitled to all she believed, and I even truthfully stated to her that I liked it that she held passionate views, despite I disagreed with her in very large part. And she had trouble with me, saying she had trouble divorcing her personal opinions from our relationship, although she finally came to terms with it. The challenge was hers far more than mine because I have no problem avoiding conflict. She did. God did she (but that's another story).

The point being that there are unresolvable differences and they have to dealt with somehow. Either you're going to enjoy sparring over your differences (where all the world is The Philosophy Forum), you're going to compromise to find middle ground, or you're going to have to watch in different rooms when your favorite team plays their favorite team.

I think you're missing that the middle ground is always contested territory. — fdrake

I think that's probably both of our points, which is that the middle ground is terribly vague, which makes it hard to navigate. The solution then comes from both directions, which is that we ought be more cautious than we currently are because we don't know the sensitivities of others and on the other side of the equation, we should be more tolerant of others because we don't want to be overly sensitive and read malice where there is none. Both are difficult to do because they require a change in personality and interaction, and at some point people are no longer truly connecting. If I watch everything I say to you for fear of your being sensitive and you feign acceptance of me when I annoy you, then there will be a superficiality to our relationship where it will not go beyond being professional to one another.

And maybe that's the real solution, which is just to admit an incompatibility when you realize that your sensitivities don't match up. That is not a "let's all get along" attitude though, but more of an admission you don't get each other, where the sensitive person is always feeling wronged and the less than sensitive guy feels like he's always having to apologize. It'd be tiring for both of them. But, it does abandon the idea that one side is more right than the other, with it being no more correct to yell "bully" as it is to yell "pussy." As long as both have the ability to successfully interact in their own worlds apart from each other without conflict, then maybe that's the safe place to stay.

Honestly, I'm feeling pretty bold in this discussion. Boldly going where I haven't gone before. Boldly expressing my lack of boldness. — T Clark

There is a boldness in honesty, but now you need to be actually bold. It sounds uncomfortable for you, so I now give you permission to say whatever sarcastic, mean spirited, and awkwardly honest thing you want to say about me. Go ahead. It'll be a growing experience.

This reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/RlTbJZ64sVM . It's really funny if you have a few minutes to watch it.

From where I stand, this is a beautiful thing to read, from a beautiful soul I am just getting to know. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh stop your touchy feely talk and tell me how much you like my new clock. Pretty sweet, huh?

I don't think the reason I obtained remorse or even stopped is because I saw myself in the target. Some of it was that I couldn't get away with it any more; I did find more socially acceptable cruelties which took a lot longer to stop; some of it was humanising the target. One of the rationalisations - well, it was true at the time for me - I had to vindicate the bullying was that since the target was a member of no social groups, and the social group I was in allowed him a limited amount of autonomy. Remember, only insofar as he was forced to be the unwilling jester, the sad clown. Him being bullied was a social contract of inclusion as much as it was a series excluding and belittling actions. Every skilled bastard fosters codependence and feeds off it. — fdrake

I think we all can agree with the platitude that we should strive towards civility, not bully, be polite, consider the views of others, respectfully disagree, and move about with grace and honor. And should we fail in these lofty goals, we should contemplate our failures and allow our conscience and the ensuing regret and remorse to redirect us.

All of that is very true, but not all too human. We can be rude, crass, obnoxious creatures, quick with a cutting remark, occasionally hitting a nerve and feeling some sense of enjoyment. Knowing that, we must grant allowances to others who fail to be proper diplomatic statesmen. The point being, we cannot be too critical of others who are occasionally too critical of us. People judge, get pissed off, fuck around with each other, ignore one another's emotions, and a necessary coping mechanism is to permit it, accept it, and embrace it as just ordinary and actually meaningful interaction. That is to say, I guess I've been bullied and I've been the bully, but being a victim is sometimes a state of mind. I do believe, as politically incorrect as it is to say, that striving toward political correctness does not make for a better society. There is profound virtue in turning the other cheek, dusting yourself off, and stepping forward for the next round. While I can sympathize with the victim, there's nothing particularly admirable about him. The guy who dusted himself off, yeah, I can admire that guy.

So, no, you shouldn't mock the guy at work who is socially inept, but should you mock him and he overreacts, that much is on him.

I'm not sure we need more John Waynes, but it's nice to at least talk to someone who knows who John Wayne is. — T Clark

Maybe we do need more John Waynes.

Don't understand. Is it my response that's non-masculine and non-assertive? Am I the one that's supposed to be nervous and anxious? — T Clark

You qualified your post at the end by saying you were in unfamiliar territory, hedging a bit. It struck me as less than bold is all.

I'm curious to see what fdrake has to say. I have a feeling there's more to it than that. From previous discussions, I think @TimeLine does too. I'm walking in unfamiliar territory. — T Clark

What's funny is that I read this as a non-assertive, non-masculine response, as in "stop telling me you're nervous and anxious about being in the deep end of the pool, fucking jump in and swim." True story. Ironic I spose

The only times I can remember having a reaction similar to what you're describing is the contempt I have sometimes felt for people, usually boys or men, acting, being weak, vulnerable, pitiful. — T Clark

If social norms designate certain conduct for anything, whether it be boys not cry, that you applaud at a play, sit silently at a funeral, or whatever, your contempt or disapproval at the violation of the norm is a normed social response in order to reassert compliance. If your contempt is excessive to the point of bullying, your cure was worse than the disease.

And so our norms have changed to where men are no longer expected to be John Wayne and women not expected to faint when offended. My own view might be antiquainted, but I do still think we need John Waynes, and I might not be as accepting of traditional female behavior on a man. I think we lost something when we stopped celebrating masculinity.

My beef was that, when the discussion veered into this area, it immediately started ragging on those wacky men. TimeLine brought out her experiences in the office, which she's discussed before. @csalisbury says "Oh, no, I'm just like that, I feel so guilty." :joke: @syntax chimes in with what his (I think you're a guy, right?) girlfriend says. :razz: . As I said, I like men. It appears to be easy to make them look ridiculous. — T Clark

These were my thoughts. It's sort of male caricature talk, supported by personal anecdote, and sort of off-putting, as I'd imagine a woman might feel if men sat around the cooler talking about how women were this and that. Some insights might be true, but stereotyping doesn't help with individual situations.

It's like men are purely worried about protecting their fragile egos at all costs. I suppose that describes the bahavior of those with fragile egos, male or female.