~ archived since 2018 ~

Intellectual women

kingoff00ls

June 13, 2012

1 upvotes

disclaimer This is in mens rights because I can't talk about it anywhere else even in real life without people calling me sexist.

Don't misunderstand me, rather than just calmly reading this please try to understand where I am coming from. As I have a bad way with words to express my intentions. Read me like I have aspergers. I somewhat with arrogance consider myself a intellectual that in my hick town lacks people to talk to on a deeper level. I find on the internet at least there is one or two people who actually think above themselves and confirmation bias even in the mens rights movement. In real life like in "big city" that number normally was also low in college, it was even lower when looking at people my own age. Now if I count those that are women that are intellectual instead of purely just feelings, I find that I am only can name one. (GWW) on the internet. I can name maybe 1 in real life. Why is it that they seem to be so few around me? I am 20 years old and honestly think I have a good head on my shoulders and a good world view. Its hard enough trying to find a man to connect with that can understand my thoughts (philosophy mainly) To find a woman almost seems impossible.

I find people easily can understand me if they talk to me for a few minutes. I have been told that because I am Asian that I have a different brain thought line than others, although this could just be my excuse for poor social skills.

Help me out MRA! Could there be some unforeseeable action that drive intellectual women from me? Or since women are taught to rely on feelings instead of reason that they are so few? Am I sexist without realizing it? Or incredibly high standards? I am so confused and honestly fed up with not being able to speak with a woman on equal terms. I can find men who are, but very so rarely that they are a woman. Is it perhaps culture? Their chemical makeup? Or maybe its me being an unaware asshole (the worst kind)?

I guess the most important question is, does anyone else think along the same lines of me? What have you found?

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Intellectual women
Author	kingoff00ls
Upvotes	1
Comments	34
Date	June 13, 2012 9:16 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/v0hnw/intellectual_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/intellectual-women.1019868 https://theredarchive.com/post/1019868

Comments

[–]rightsbot 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genuinemra 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingoff00ls -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kingoff00ls -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tigalicious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I would identify myself as an intelligent woman, and I have a pretty sharp asshole radar but you don't seem to be on it. From the sound of it, you do seem to have high standards for the people you surround yourself with, which is a good thing. From what you've said here one thing you may want to question about your opinions is; why do you say intelligence and emotions as a dichotomy?

Women do tend to be more openly emotional, between biological and societal influences, but that doesn't mean that they can't also be very intelligent at the same time. Something I catch a lot when I'm trying to have a discussion with someone is that I must have somehow temporarily shut down the logical part of my brain if I show emotions about the subject. High emotions can cloud a person's reasoning, but having passion doesn't require me to stop thinking. In my view passion is one of the big things that drive thinking.

You may want to look into the possibility that you're not giving other forms of intelligence or other ways of expressing it legitimacy. Ignorance is such an ugly word, but there really is nothing morally wrong with honestly not realizing that you've accidentally held a prejudice. It's only wrong if you see it for what it is and continue it anyway. Not saying that is the reason -I don't know anything about you except for what you've said here-, but it's possibly a contributing factor that you might want to look into.

[–]kingoff00ls -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Sorry I deleted the post because at first I was getting nothing but downvotes and it seemed pointless. The fact someone actually answered it, is great.

I am not saying that they HAVE to be in conflict but many times they are in conflict. Like a myers brigg personality test, thinking and feeling are the opposites same as extrovert and introvert. Plus, I think honestly that many women are taught their feelings have more value than they should. To the point they look to their feelings and no at all to reason. This is a stupid as shit reason why hicks say "you can't win an argument with a woman" I am a asian redneck I suppose but just so you understand the adage if you haven't heard it.

YES passion/emotion can drive thinking! I totally agree but it seems people need to be taught how to put aside emotion sometimes. Generally though, women use the excuse of their periods or menopause or whatever to say there is a reason for them acting unprofessional. When they say that I see they are not intelligent, only the intellectually weak confess that they are powerless against their emotions.

Sadly I have already explored that avenue fully, people know more about cars than me and more about a lot of things. The knowledge I am looking for isn't exactly academic but rather a lover of knowledge? Hmmm, trying not to sound angsty here but I think more or less knowledge that one loves to aquire that isn't about the immediate world around them. Expanding their minds SOMEHOW. It just seems people are fine with their current knowledge if thats what gets them by. Men are hard to find to love knowledge outside of their area like politics, war, social issues etc. In other words its the opposite of what um....I think jay leno does when he goes on the streets and asks who the president is and they DONT know. I look for the opposite of that. I can find the in between easily. But a lover of knowledge I seem very alone. Thoughts?

[–]tigalicious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Well, even a smart person can be a douche that's always quick with an excuse for their behavior. I think using the words intelligent and intellectual interchangeably is a mistake though. Which makes me realize that my first comment made exactly that mistake... :/ I actually get what you're saying a lot more in that case, intellectualism is hard to find.

In another way, though, making that distinction makes your question more puzzling to me because, while I don't have many friends who I can have deeply academic conversations with either, the majority that I do have in my life are female. I always assumed that was because I find it easier to talk to other women because we automatically have common life experiences and learned similar ways of communicating. Of course, drawing a conclusion from such a small sample is faulty, but I think that's really what I was trying to say in my first response, that maybe it's communication styles that get in your way.

I have mixed feelings (heh) about your statement that feelings should be put aside more often though. I recently read Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink, that talks about how gut feelings are really just thought shortcuts. You can't usually see the path of reasoning that you've followed to decide "I feel uncomfortable around this person" or "I should raise my bet on this hand", but your mind is actually capable of picking up small signals and making snap decisions without you even being aware of them. Personally that's something I experience a lot when I see or hear something that bothers me and I don't know why; it usually takes a lot of deconstruction, but I almost always realize it's because the event in question was prejudiced in some way I hadn't learned to see yet, and social equality is a big interest of mine. I see your point that a lot of people just don't think, but feelings have a definite legitimacy in my opinion, and I think allowing yourself to feel them fully but also examining them and decoding them is a better way to be than treating thought and feelings as opposites.

Which is all sort of off on a tangent from the original topic, I guess... But on it's own, being lonely because you're too smart is a topic that doesn't usually end up with a lot of content. We all get lonely for one reason or another.

[–]kingoff00ls -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

On the gut feelings I agree, However what I was getting at is something a bit different. I have had the same theory on guy feelings more or less for a little while although it was small fleeting thoughts.

More or less a lot of women I know are right not because of the reasons that they can back up their feelings. But just because they are their feelings. Which is what I have issue with, sorry if I sound stoic.

"That which makes you exceptional, if you are at all, is also what makes you lonely"

Communication styles is most likely hitting it on the head, it is 100% likely to be PART of the reason at least.

I guess another thing that shows my brand I suppose of intelligence that i am looking for is the viscosity of knowledge with their social life. A person who loves knowledge and the facts they learn will no doubt have extreme difficulty not talking to people about all this cool stuff they have learned. A default subbreddit is dedicated to it TIL. I think I could quickly learn who loved knowledge simply by what they spoke about. Which makes me really excited to go back to college.

I have trouble expressing myself because the communication process I have is somehow Asian even though my Asian parent I didn't grow up around. So I often do things and topics like this to bounce ideas off people and clarify ideas and notions I have. Thanks for your time!

[–]tigalicious -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingoff00ls 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]tigalicious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Honestly the book wasn't in those kinds of terms... The author is a journalist so basically all of his knowledge is from researching topics he can sell articles on. That's part of why I like most of the stuff he writes; he's very down-to-earth, an easy read but always quirky topics. It's all about applications of gut feelings, referencing psychological research about how they can be accurate, but also the problem of when they can be trusted since there's no telling what your "feeling" is based on, whether it's legitimate logic or prejudice.

Intuition is a really interesting thing to me, so I just suck that kind of stuff up. In my opinion there's no way to be fully happy in life if you're not making a conscious effort to be open to feeling everything. It's a good book for light but educational reading.

The world's full of sucky people, but without the contrast there would be no such thing as exceptional people! Have you sure that you haven't fallen into sexist attitudes, though? I only ask because, like the whole feelings thing, it's only valid to say you're right if you've put your stance to real scrutiny, otherwise you're just blindly trumpeting your opinion like them. Honestly my first thought when you said that communication styles might be at the root of your problem with meeting intellectual women was that that's usually a problem with unconscious sexism.

I hate it when people use the word sexist as an insult like that though. Sexism in itself is a negative thing, but on a basic level people aren't, and excising bad attitudes is a matter of self-educating, not... I don't know, reform? I think one of the biggest roadblocks for feminism is the idea that sexism is evil and requires guilt and admission that deep down you're a bad person or something. I do feel like accusations like that deserve thinking about though. I hate being told I'm misandrist or racist, but I find that it's usually because I've said or done something that I hadn't deeply considered the meanings of, and then I have to put some thought into my opinions, at the very least so I can form a legitimate defense for why I came across that way.

I hate to be one of those people, too, just wondering what you thought of the content of their hassling.

[–]kingoff00ls 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Communication styles is something that both sexes get from me and find to be unpleasant. That is until they get to know me that they realize that I simply think very differently than other people. Not better, not smarter, just different. It may be smarter or better but that's not for me to think about or decide.

Interesting topic you put forward here, let me then put forward one of my own. I wish to be average in the sense that most people I meet are smarter than me. I find that in general I am the one doing the teaching or ignoring the HUGELY incorrect statements that fly out of the persons mouth. For example water can go stagnant! (argued this with the "smart" women of the area) I constantly find such blisteringly obvious things that I am too weak to not correct. I try to keep from being like Sheldon from Big bang theory and I honestly don't think I am.

To put forward another example also understand this. I am a muscular guy, growing up other muscular men have always been my best buddies and we never disrespected or challenged one another (in high school). Who do you think the problem came from? The little guys with something to prove. They would always try to pick fights with us saying how they could kick our collective ass and that we honestly just laughed and continued being gentle giants. The fact of us "being" in their mind better than them threatened them. The fact that I can naturally bench 50 lbs over starting out what the little guy has been taking suppliments out the ass for just getting his weight on bench makes them afraid. Afraid that they are not good enough.

Forward this example then to intellectuals, I correct simply because I love knowledge. I love it when I meet those that are better than me. I never have problems with "equals" or such, the same as being a big guy. The ones that always have the problems with me are the ones who think they got it. I am around them and I just by being there show them at least in their "GUT FEELING" that I am better than them. (when honestly I don't care) So they hate me. They hate anything that shows them that they haven't already made it. That someone else could be better than them in just that one single area.

The problem is that generally the love of knowledge is not something typically given around me area. Even then very few men also share this aspiration. The women I have trouble finding the same example, that or I scare them off because i am a unaware ass that men are impervious to. I could theorize that women in this area are not taught the passion of knowledge, however seeing how the top 10 students (HS) were all female besides 1 dissuades me on that regard. Plus such a passion is not taught, it is acquired through.......I don't know.

I just know that I behave myself. That my communication style much like my intellect and muscles perhaps puts people on edge. I am VERY analytic to a fault. So I don't think that I have unaware sexism because I simply haven't met any lovers of knowledge and truth in my real life. I have met in my opinion 1 female. All the others seem more drawn up in how they are going to afford the next iphone upgrade and who had sex with whom.

I am 20 years old with around 40 college hours under my belt so I am not exactly naive per say. Yes, I agree reform is needed to accomplish things like non-bias thinking and treating everyone the same. At this venture, in the 11 point list of things I need to change about myself I find none suggesting sexism. If anything, I find I lower my standards around women more because of my willingness to find ANY that meet my standards of.....a intellectual? I don't know how to phrase it although I think you know what I am getting at.

There is always a grain of truth in what the people that know you accuse you of. However, that is not what they say why I can't find women to my standards. They always say I am too honest. I will tell her if her dress isn't pleasant if she asks and if she wants truth from me all the time then she should expect it from me, I am only human. Another would be social norms aren't my thing if I don't see a need for them. If a girl needs a ride and my harley is the only thing I got, then fuck whoever gets mad when I offer her a ride. If she gets mad then oh well. I can ride with a girl without wanting to have sex with her. Strange enough, the only women that rode on my harley are those that have a boyfriend and the dude knows and is cool. Although since I am a harley rider at a christian college can't NOT want to molest her. This incident along with others (if you want to investigate the others you can) has me black listed where I lived, with females, until I had to move away. This is honestly what propelled me to mens rights. Before that however I still couldn't find a chick with good mental capability who wasn't insecure around me. The people I hang around now realize that I do the correction because I hate errors, not because I want to show how smart I am or to show them being an idiot. I am more.....simple minded than that lol.

[–]tigalicious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Actually after your self-description, that makes a lot more sense. I hope this doesn't offend you, but if I met you in person I would probably not be talking to you in the way I am now. Most women have at least some history of intimidation or abuse and go through a period where they become very insecure around men in general, until they become mature enough to be completely over it. I know I still do that. I tend to be very up front about it and just straight up say something like "I know it's completely not your fault, but being around big guys makes me nervous, so I'm going to be skittish around you."

I find that addressing it directly helps, or at least gives an explanation for why I don't respond to jokes or take a step back when they stand close. Otherwise guys tend to assume I'm an angry lesbian or something. Most girls I know respond by unconsciously dumbing themselves down and acting super feminine. I think it's a way to retreat into their comfort zone. I mean, the unspoken rules of gender roles say that if you follow all the rules nobody will shame or punish you. So it makes sense that if your presence can be intimidating, outspoken women tend to evaporate into silly or overly defensive girls.

It seems weird to me that Harley riders would get a bad reputation in a Christian environment, though. Living in the South recently I've found that there is a huge biker community here, and I always assumed that it was tied to the fact that there's a stronger Christian community. I mean, most of the bikers I've known are at least mildly religious. Maybe that's just a coincidence here, or because it's different in college communities.

If you wouldn't mind explaining, though, what is it about men's rights? At first I thought I understood it as more of a male-centric version of feminism, but after digging further into it I don't think I actually get it. The basic premise of it seems to be that feminism caused the entire need for men's rights activism, but from a feminist standpoint, at least most of MRA issues I had always considered a part of sexism as feminists see it. There is a lack of male representation in feminism, but it wouldn't have occurred to me that a separate and opposing movement would be the answer to that...

[–]kingoff00ls -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

FUCK. You hit it so perfectly on the head. The female perspective you have just provided has opened my eyes to why they acted that way. Thank you so very much I can't stress this enough! Most women like you said have been abused in such a way one way or another, in fact with the women I know I would definitely say 90% of them have been abused. I think this along with the difficulty of finding a intellectual by itself this makes so much fucking sense.

Yes, but since I am a big guy they don't have that experiance, they instead assume that I am a hells angel kinda guy. Which in my area there are a few biker gangs. It isn't fair to me but I always assume its because they are stupid and not an intellectual. I have always suspected that I have a victim complex that makes me wrap myself up in a ivory tower of intellectualism this confirms it. I think this is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy since after that I act in more of a arrogant tone which then spurns greater disdain for my actions causing me to withdraw even more!

As for mens rights I completely agree, RockinmrE is actually someone else who has put forward this that has opened my eyes. I will try to answer why in the following.

I think you are getting onto the key issue here as it is with me in regards to mens rights. Liberals and conservatives both wish for the betterment of mankind and lets just suppose for the use of the argument that they are Feminism and mens rights respectively. Their are undeniably actual "evil" people on both sides of the spectrum, they shout really loud and tend to represent the community as the whole. The same can be said of R/atheism as you no doubt aware of. They are a negative circle jerk who are so self-assured when they are in fact full of shit and have the same things that the religious perps have wrong. I know you are a member of such but know of that mindset that gets broadcasted and please understand that I am not insulting you in fact I assume you agree. The loud people and the nonvocal upvotes tend to establish a "majority" mindset or hive mind while people who actually are logical non-jackass atheists on the site. The same with mens rights and feminism, Rad Fems and MGTOW both say that the ones biological evolution is perfect while the other is poison to society. This tends to become the mindset. Since Mens rights in on reddit the nonvocal upvotes tends to set forward the notion that fems are made up of the completely rad fems who want to kill all men.

I don't doubt you already knew the above part, however to have a discussion I think I need to establish the obvious to avoid confusion.

So the party that in fact a good portion wish to end ALL inequality its hard to ally the same movement so to speak when they also have the ones that are the BIGGEST cause of their oppression. Bi-partisan support in the political arena is hard for this same reason. Its hard for a conservative to support liberals when the same liberals could be Marxist, which is poison to free thinking. The same could be said of "privilege" which is marxist theory that kills free thinking. Affirmative action did not solve racism in the workplace but instead made it to where the only race or life that they don't have to hire is straight white male. Gay activism make it to where its not okay to say fag in a social setting. Black and feminism is the same way. So the only thing that isn't represented is straight white male.

This is the most important part of my points so please read here. This is the application of privilege. White priv. male priv. All have made it to where now in this social setting they are the ones actually discriminated against. Gays haven't made it to where they will eventually without a doubt in my mind have more rights than straights, but feminism has. So the question that doesn't have a real answer is when have striaghts or men suffered enough under the application of straight or male priv? The answer is without a set time the application of privilege switches every bloody day. This means that privilege doesn't solve the things it sets out to solve and although a warm idea, fails for the SAME EXACT REASONS as marxism.

The failure of privilege and how its unique to mens rights is that this is the first time that the opposite activism movement has existed. White rights or straight rights have never existed outside of extremist or even terrorist operations. So the application in life of privilege in a actual movement resulted in mens rights naturally. Since the oppression and the antithesis of what they are about are from feminist theory, its hard if not impossible to have bi-partisan efforts unless the group mens rights join acknowledge not only what is sexist, but also incorrect 2nd and 3rd wave feminist theories that caused the movement in the first place. Privilege actually encourages in this example segregation which is what AA and privilege wants to correct.

So this is why mens rights in its proper application is not impossible to be with feminism but under what feminism in the mainstream actually is represented to be is whats impossible. Feminism has two core sets of beliefs that are radically different, sadly the loudest ones and therefore ones that represent them like with r/atheism are what it is deemed to be. If you were to create a movement that acknowledged both sides and that privilege is wrong (rad fem) and that both genders can overcome themselves (MGTOW) then mens and womens rights would be finally be called gender rights. Until that time however, only false promises of messiahs like Obama and George bush ?(I don't know a cult of personality for conservatives) being bi-partisan and confirmation bias is possible from humans and will continue to rule us and divide us.

[–]tigalicious1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Glad I could help! I don't think there's a word for that phenomenon because it never really gets talked about, but I'm happy that I could help you see something new.

I took awhile to just chew on what you've said about feminism and men's rights, and I think what rings so wrong to me about what you're saying is the fact that you're using the word "privilege" like it's something made up. As I understand it, privilege is the word to describe the experience of not being discriminated against. It's harder to communicate it when it's put in positive terms, like white privilege being that people automatically trust you more, but it makes perfect sense if the term is used to describe the blank spaces in between prejudiced attitudes. I see white privilege as not being suspected as a criminal on sight. If there was no prejudice, privilege would not exist.

I think things like sexism and heterosexism are more complicated, though, because they're more matters of identity than genetics, so they really hurt everyone. For instance, the higher rate of suicide for men is something that men's rights and feminism both see as a problem, and for that matter LGBT activists, although they are more focused on queer suicides in particular. The fact that men are assumed to be more competent and in control of their lives is in some areas a privilege, but being boxed into a limited role that doesn't allow for men to be emotional or ask for help can literally kill. I see that box as being the sexist idea that 'real' men don't cry or need help, and the heterosexist idea that anyone who breaks those rules opens themselves up to be shamed as a 'sissy'. And that's where privilege gets sticky, because when it's in areas where you can magically get framed as a member of the disempowered group, it actually becomes a negative thing for everybody in the big picture.

I know I'm not addressing the majority of the other things you've said; part of that is because I can see your point on some things, and the other bits I heard and am mulling over still. I've always attributed the fact that men's rights doesn't seem to ally with any other activist groups to the fact that it's a very young movement. When feminism was young it didn't ally with the civil rights movement, just like as the civil rights movement and queer activism groups matured they became more welcoming to white and straight allies, and each other. Nowadays white allies and straight allies are more than welcome, on the condition that they are mindful of the experiences of other people when discussing discrimination. That's the attitude I approach men's rights with, and that's all that's expected of anyone when approaching feminism as well.

I guess being female, I don't really understand the hostility a man can feel entering that environment, but I've also had very little problem with entering other activist groups that I'm personally unrelated to as well. In the large scale it just seems to me that men's rights as a movement is working out angst because it's so young, and it seems unnecessary to me since feminism already exists and could use the male participation to deepen its discussions and build on the momentum already gained. If female-only feminism is a mild form of extremism, then men's rights in a way strikes me as exclusive as well when a forum already exists for gender equality. I don't mean to diminish or ignore what you're saying. I think on a basic level we're just approaching the same idea from very different perspectives and I'm not sure where common ground to communicate about it would be.

[–]kingoff00ls1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tigalicious1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I really see privilege as the blank space prejudice causes. In my opinion the only answer in that case is education about prejudice on a personal level and education on a wider scope. That really is it to me. I mean, you can have lengthy conversations about how the legal system fails at this or that, but on a basic level it fails at those things because not enough people in the right places have learned the kind of values that good policies come out of. Sadly, not everyone pursues their own education and those that do don't tend to be the people given power, so it will never be perfect, but I think that's the deepest way to fix any cultural problem.

In a way, though, I do feel like that's only one solution and that all viable solutions should be pursued by the people that believe in them. I mean, just because I may believe in pacifism, for instance, doesn't mean that I don't see the value in the fact that there are other people out there willing to join the army.

I've never heard that viewpoint before though... How can it be marxist? I don't understand what you mean.

[–]kingoff00ls1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You explain it in a much better context. Social privilege from what you can look at from my post history as I get into arguments often about such matters, is where since blackie has been treated poorly, I even though I treat blackie just like whitie must treat blackie better because society is mean to blackie. This like Affirmative action doesn't solve racism. I agree with your statement and I wish you would youtube morgan freemans thoughts on race and black history month and its quite fantastic.

Racism will never be truly solved in the sense that education hasn't solved violence either. However, it is the best solution to the problem that we know of. Any other solutions are welcomed but I don't see any other way to fix it without causing more problems.

Stereotypes exist for a reason, as much as police officers wouldn't like to admit the ghetto areas have high civil unrest due to low economy and low education. Since blacks mexicans are those that typically are in those areas crime is therefore done by those races. After a while this becomes an expectation rather than a tragedy. This is why in hip hop and other black ghetto culture crime is expressed as something welcomed. This in a limited since like when found in rock is simply flipping off the man, while in hip hop it is seen as the cops simply being evil. They are evil so I being black must be good. The cops are bad because they attack us for crimes. Crimes are expected of us so they are punishing us for doing what we should do. Hip Hop tells me that I will successful and have lots of bitches if I do commit crimes. Education is what the police want to feed me and its hard to do it. Its hard to do it unlike crime because its not what I am supposed to do.

See how this is sad but good logic? Education to rise above their racial standards seems to be what privilege should seek to solve. Ghetto's influence on a societies standards are should be what is disbarred not how people are treated because of what those people do. Sure its racist to assume that this black man who came from the ghetto will commit crimes, so I should as a police officer pull him over. However, since he came from the ghetto its a crime of association basically because of the SOCIETY STANDARDS that Hip hop and the ghetto give off. Cops are being rational in pulling them over, if the profiling becomes blind to evidence to the contrary then I think its then racism and therefore bad.

This sort of logic could therefore be applied to the workplace, school, everywhere. Different people groups come forward with different roles that were given to them growing up. The union of these people is when issues arise like racism and class warfare. This is truly why its wrong to say N**ger when you are not black and in the hood. Some blacks think its wrong for high society blacks to say it because "they ain't black dey white". Its a Rich vs poor, Ghetto vs society mentality, race is also a part of it. Stealing hustling and other things are the response to "fight back" against the rich and society.

You need to look at the cultures and realize its not individual persons that cause these problems its societies influence. Once you realize this then just proper education will only mask the problem that is blacks or other races being in a poor environment that gives racism a reason to exist. It does NOT mean racism should exist, but rather privilege only masks the problem and causes people to ignore profiles that actually exist.

Asian is the race I am, I can say for a fact that the "smart" asian stereotype is true because of the society. Parents force their child to excel in life and to push themselves. If you know of a certain hungarian psychologist who produced 3 grand masters at chess from his children you will know that in order to create genuis in a certain area, dedication to the subject must start at a young age. Biological reasons I won't get into, but this is why asians are considered smart because of parents pushing their children. Its not like they are genetically better than whites, its that their environment (society) pushes them into this. Sure, some like blacks rise above their environment but they are the exception to the rule and should not form theories around them.

I could write more but I need input from you in order to continue this. I love our talks.

Asian, best friend is mexican, two brothers are black (adopted) and my father is white. I got most of the spectrum covered basically.

[–]tigalicious1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You know, it always takes me a bit for me to process what you say enough to have a response. You always have so much content in what you say. Honestly this time it took a drink to really absorb it. Deep thought and poetry always work better for me in that state.

It seems to me what you're saying in short is that while prejudice in theory is wrong, profiling is a logical way to function in real life in some situations because of the patterns that society weaves out of people. And it is logical, but I don't think it's enough that it works. It works because it's not challenging a system that we already know in theory is wrong. If that system is going to change, it has to get challenged. Enough people have to be acting against it.

Classism is probably the stickiest system though, I do agree on that. It's really not as simple as "racism is wrong, so don't do it". Race and gender and socioeconomic class all interact in how people form their own identities and how they see other people. And while class is something that can be defied or even changed, it's still always going to be the basic framework people grow up in.

I don't know... I mean, I see your point that profiling is in many cases a matter of simply recognizing cultural differences and acting on them. It may be idealism on my part, but while it makes sense I don't think in the larger scale that it's okay. Social justice is very important to me, and I think the world gets changed through idealism. So yeah, making judgements based on actual experiences is understandable but it's still judging people and it's still wrong to me.

Maybe that's not what you meant exactly. I think what I mean though is that recognizing patterns means that you have to put work into identifying the reasons that contribute to them, and especially make sure that you are rooting judgement about it out of yourself. And that especially if you yourself are a person with power like a police officer or teacher, you have a responsibility to ignore those patterns at least on the level of how you treat people, because it's your responsibility to be a driving force in breaking that pattern.

And now I'm pretty sure I've just said the same thing several times, but maybe one of them will be one that gets across well... I do it plenty at you, but communicating actually isn't one of my better skills.

[–]kingoff00ls1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow, you phrase all my content on the turnaround so much better than me. Communicating is something I have trouble with as well.

The system or the two clashing worldviews of the cop and the gangbanger is whats wrong. They have different values, different truths evident to each one alone. The meeting of such in old times would mark a war or a killing off of the weak. Since we are more noble in spirit since then lets not resort to genocide alright? So the "system" which you refer to is not wrong, its a trained response to threats in the environment that could destroy ones own environment. If it is wrong, it is only wrong because of the two cultures hitting each other and not because one is more evil than the other. There is no evil, simply a better culture or worse culture in this scenario. So social justice then would be punishing the weaker or worse culture would it not? To answer this question earnestly we must examine the questions of ethics. (see below)

I know how difficult it is to accept current reality. However, accepting reality as it is now doesn't mean we should keep as it is now, which is that what I think is the uneasiness you feel. This is a very pure and noble thought, of which I share from time to time.

However the application of such is where it gets complicated, in fact this application is what seems so daunting and impossible in task that has turned many to religion. We would all agree to solve racism the best choice would seem to be eliminate cultural identities. This however seems almost to commit social suicide as we would be all the "same". Furthermore what is to decide what is the better social identity? Sure we can all agree black ghetto cultural isn't good, but what about suburban white and Japanese culture? All the sudden our very identies and different ethics make which identity is best to be seemingly impossible to find. Japanese see business success as the best life would have to offer, while white suburban would see the family as that. Who is better? This goes into higher metaphysical problems where the question of what is good and evil needs to be answered.

For the sake of argument I will make myself a atheist who is therefore a materialist. Ethics, good and evil are simply societal constructs. An example of this is animals, for a shark it is acceptable for a male to force-ably mate with a female, or for a female chimp to mate with every male after the alpha male to insure that infanticide doesn't happen as no male chimp knows who is the father. Both of these things are traditionally seen as something bad in our culture as humans. That seems to mean that what is right and wrong in our society is what contributes to the "well being" as atheist writer Sam Harris puts it to humankind.

The well being or ethics in this case is dependent on our biological makeup. Sharks its ok to do so because their makeup makes it so, chimps likewise. There is no reason we should think humans and our ethics have a higher standard than animals, any notion to that speaks of belief in the supernatural and is silly.

The problem with this is that because we have become the apex predator we as humans don't have the killing off the "weak" nor does nature have the ability to do so anymore. So our cultural ties that we cherish might actually be something that should kill us. The only threat to man is now other man. So killing off the weak is no longer an option unless you consider genocide to be a option in which case stay far far away from me :P.

So we can't get rid of the weak physically which is how evolution has progressed ALL LIFE. Then how should we proceed now? lets use your theory of education to try and surpass it in this argument. How can we educate them to rise about their cultural influences? We could teach them of our culture, but theirs is taught before ours and would just create a very confused individual. If we go by brain washing, they will always have more exposure to the culture than to our methods of education. So we can't force them to abandon their identity because their identity is already in place by the time we can try. Unless we kidnap them much like we (Americans) took native american children away from their parents and educated them away from their culture. This is regarded also as a failure because the children returned as pariahs and truly didn't get rid of the "weaker" culture that clashed with American culture. The parents then had more kids so they could raise them in their own culture. So we would have to kidnap or promote a "diaspora" of all young ones and wait until the older generation has died out. This would also mean tearing away of the babies each time the parent gave birth to replace the ones we stole. Any further action in this manner would force them to commit a even more different kind than mentioned before, and be a great atrocity to mankind.

We then realize that education while good, does not solve the problems that plague humans. The problem is that the perfect system of survival of the fittest no longer applies here. Our heart will tell us that going back to that would be a great crime. Any effort to replace the framework that is below what "we" teach them is gone to waste. In effect we can not educate them TRULY without committing a crime like the ones above that also violates our own culture, proving ours to be a falsehood.

This is what the book "The Watchman" by alan moore was getting at, Ozymandias or viedt sacrificed even his own ethics for the world to continue turning. This is what it seems have to happen in order for things like racism and such to be truly solved. However, like in the watchman such a lie to ourselves only delays the destiny. The "knots" as the book calls them are the frameworks that we grow up in, since they aren't the same and they simply can't be we are destined to hurt each other and kill one another for things that we simply don't understand.

The framework forces Black to hate the cop, we can't correct it only mask the problem. Humans are so complicated in this matter.

It seems that the freedom offered by evolution by being the apex predator and giving us the ability to do what we wish without worry of being weak and killed off is also the chain that binds us down to kill each other. It seems in an ironic fashion that we wish to transcend our humanity in order to gain our humanity. Now since we can't kill off another culture in a pure way, and ethics are based on culture and species, we can't tell another that they are wrong. We can in the literal sense but that also doesn't question our own culture.

What system can operate in this biological dome that gives total freedom? Anyone.

What system then is the "best" one to use in this total freedom? Anyone.

The terms of best is also dependent on who is the one asking. Our ethics of course make it to where our culture is the best. Well.......so can black culture. In fact with that line of thinking any culture is "the best". Since ethics is dependent on culture and ethics decides which culture is best, isn't this circular? So why is ours the best? The answer is that it isn't. In fact they are all equally worthless. This seems to mean that under atheism and materialism, which of course says that nothing outside of the material universe exists, that its impossible to rise above humanity because its impossible to rise to anything greater because nothing is greater can be shown with our ethics are all that we can have!This seems to shown that idealism as you described is a pipe dream under atheism and materialism. idealism seeks to make man better by: Using ethics which are founded by and on man to transcend man which is governed by ethics. Idealism in logic is very circular.

The path of a man is right in his own eyes, as it is also with the man next to him, the man across the ocean, the man eating another man, and the one killing another man, as the one kissing another man, as the one stealing from another man. THEIR Ethics show that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Who are we but the same humans to say they are wrong?

[–]tigalicious1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I never did read "The Watchmen". Watched the movie of course, but I don't usually like American style comics so I hesitate to spend my money one them. Did you watch "Chronicle" though? I've noticed that since that movie came out I've heard the term "apex predator" a lot more. Maybe I just didn't particularly notice it before. Sorry for the long response time, I've been working more hours than I can really handle lately.

I get what you're saying about cultural relativism. I think though with how fast our species is becoming more globalized, those kind of cultural clashes are happening more and more. We're not really evolving in the traditional sense anymore, but our culture is evolving, and I think the step we're at now is learning how to interact between cultures without judgning each other and attacking each other so much.

That's the kind of education that I think is really important. I wouldn't want to eliminate black culture or police culture as a way to reduce clashes. It wouldn't work. It would probably make things worse. I mean, no amount of physical or cultural genocide managed to actually stamp out Native American, Scottish, or Jewish people. It may have weakened them in numbers, but hostility only makes people more determined to hold onto their own identities, even the problematic parts.

I don't think idealism necessarily means believing in universal ideals. Different cultures do have the right to decide their own values, but that doesn't mean that people inside of each shouldn't work towards a better evolution of them. And that doesn't mean that some parts of every culture aren't problematic. Personally, I really like that word when talking about stuff like this, because you're right, it's really nobody's place to decide what's right or wrong, good or evil, for someone else. It can be prudent to point out that something is causing problems though. And we should try to help each other in reducing the problems we experience because it strengthens our cultures and our species. That may not be entirely logical seeing as how we already dominate the planet, but you can't deny that strengthening our species is a pure natural instinct at least.

[–]kingoff00ls1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tigalicious1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With the wrong kind of education, Christian communities can become very anti-Semitic. In other places and other times, people find themselves much more likely to say "oh, you're Jewish? That's cool." Both firmly maintain their respective religions in either case, they didn't have to lose a part of their identity in order to get along. They just learned how to agree to disagree on religion.

Years ago, things overall on our planet were more violent, with more of a tendency towards domination or defeat when two cultures found themselves in the same place. Queer culture was severely suppressed. Gender, race, and national origin were all considered perfectly valid justifications for oppression or violence. Slavery was common and accepted all over the world. In any developed country, all of these kinds of accepted culture clashes, where two cultures interacted by treating each other as not completely human, have been declared unacceptable. To a degree we're already in that peaceful world.

I think in the grander scale, we are learning how to get along. Not all of the species is learning this trick as fast as others, but that's what makes it evolution. Fifty years ago, queer culture was under the very violent thumb of bigotry in this country. All it took to put that to a stop was to educate people that it's okay to let them live their own lives. I'm not saying everyone has learned that fact, but it is a slowly growing fact of life. I just think that progress like that needs for people to put the effort into pushing that forward or it stops, even slides back. People need to be putting the effort into teaching our young to read or the next generation will lose that progress, and people should be teaching our young cultural relativism too. That's how the wealth of literature of our species grows, and that's how peace in our species grows.

That's really what I mean by education. I don't think tolerance classes are going to put a dramatic end to the dissonance between black culture and police culture. But I think our world needs people willing to spin their wheels on them, because it does make progress in the long run. The world is never going to be perfect, but it could always be better if people put the effort into it.

[–]kingoff00ls1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If education has an effect which I am saying it does, why wouldn't it be capable of being perfect?

This is always the problem I have with the education theory, if it can fix some of the problems that exist within human nature and the problems of evolution why is it that we can't fix it entirely? If we are just simply chemical beings wouldn't it be easy to reconcile those machine chiemical reactions to be focused on "well being"? Its this difficulty that has led some to the theory of sin.

Second is of course, the problem with cultural relativism, doesn't this theory mean that if one culture is "stronger" in the short term than another people can inact genocide? Sure our SOCIETY has evolved but we have not, Pearl Jams "do the evolution" can illustrate this in the form of a video. Another example would be the history of before WW1 we thought we knew everything and that we would always have peace this is why it was called the "great war" and the war to end all wars. Lit. philo. all of it and even the public mind had the idea that we "made it". we think in the academic sense that we have as well with our culturers. In the real sense we haven't come forward what so ever, what is the difference between 10,000 years ago killing over land and today where a man kills another for what street he lives on? The same example or concept could be applied everywhere in human nature. We thought these alliances would keep us safe, that they would make no one else attack us because........it would make everyone fight.

The application of my last point to widespread use of cultural relativism would create a world much like Neitzche envisioned from what I hear (I have never read him but my ideas apparently mirrior his) That men who rose above the morals of society could in fact, prey upon and be stronger than the ones who adhere to it. It happens now you could argue with things such as big biz where they make sure they can take a every dime from a person, and make sure laws are made so the same can't happen to them. If they couldn't get caught, under cultural relativism we would have to say that this pursuit would be the most desirable. We have already discussed the improbability of success in brainwashing, so the fact that these men above morals would rise up and take advantage of the system or cultural seems rather logical to me. Its the alpha males using the systems to their own benefits. Perfectly evolutionary. Since we presuppose there is no god or such and that the material universe is all that was, is, and ever will be, also means that this chemical process establishes that there is no point in life besides whatever gives you that dopomine craze. This of course supports the notion of trying to take advantage of the "weak". It seems that ethics in this sense would also serve to further evolution. Game theory, zero-sum, and tragety of the commons doesn't apply. It doesn't matter if fellow man is suffering because of his actions, he is his own man. His own culture. He has the ability due to grey and white matter to rise above brain function of lesser species and now realize that reproduction and food are just means to an end that doesn't have one thats pretty. So the rejection of that in favor of one that serves ones natural inclinations seems logical for this man. To not take advantage of the ethical standings of the cultural he would be foolish. In this evolution will thrust itself into its next life cycle.

I am sure you have much to respond to now and I can't wait for your response! waiting for your response!

[–]tigalicious1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I try to balance my idealism and realism, and while I believe that education applied properly is capable of solving all of our most basic problems, I don't think it will ever be quite right. You just can't reach everyone. Some people lack the desire or capacity to learn, or already think they know and will die before reconsidering their opinion. Plus there's the sheer number of people in the world, and no way to know the best way to get through to all of them. On top of that, ideally we are always expanding and improving on our knowledge, and so as time passes there will always be more to learn.

I've read some of Neitzche. I know he was brilliant but I also found him to be a bag full of crazy that harbored a lot of hostile sexism towards women. I probably missed a lot of the meaning to the whole Zarathustra allegory because I just disagreed with him on a basic level though. I can't stand behind the idea that because someone is more advanced, they have the right to take advantage of others. I think you can say objectively that that is wrong, because it harms the people that the more advanced human comes in contact with, when that advancement is in itself an opportunity to make things better in some way. Cultural relativism isn't just a catchall excuse for being a sociopath. It's an understanding that customs and cultures can be vastly different, but all deserve respect. One man is not a culture, and to define him that way is to try to remove responsibility from him for his own personal choices.

A culture shouldn't be judged as right or wrong because it is a different framework of right and wrong, not a single conscious being. I think right and wrong, good and evil are manmade concepts, but I also think they exist now that man has made them. "Right" is that which benefits, and "wrong" is that which harms. Something can be right for one person but still overwhelmingly wrong for others, and so on a basic level is can be called wrong. I forget the name for it, but I believe that rightness and wrongness can be measured by how much happiness or harm that something creates. So buying yourself an ice cream is a "good" because it does something nice for you without harming anyone else. Staling an ice cream from someone else is bad because it does something nice for you, but violates someone else's right to own what he buys, which is a more important issue than ice cream itself. So I believe also that taking advantage of other people is bad, because one individual can be held accountable for the harm he or she causes.

I guess basically, I think empathy is important. We are a social species. We help each other: that's how we learned how to pool our knowledge and start evolving socially at a pace so much faster than our physical evolution. To leave that behind is to become a rogue human who is no longer helpful to the species.

Plus, logically you can't remove responsibility for taking advantage or dominating other people because they are less advanced and still be against violence. Violence is the action of finding out or proving who's stronger in a basic, primitive way. If advancement is the only goal at the cost of all else, then there would also be nothing wrong with killing other people because you're stronger, you can, and it makes you happy to do it. I may not be understanding your position fully, but I thought you didn't approve of people killing each other. Why exactly is it wrong, and why doesn't that same reason, whatever it is, make harming people in other ways wrong?

[–]tigalicious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kingoff00ls 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kingoff00ls 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DruchiiConversion 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kingoff00ls 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I find very few people are intellectuals, both men and women. My immediate family are pretty much all intellectuals, though, which is nice.

Are there more male intellectuals than females? I don't know. I find that a lot of my intelligent female friends are intellectuals but don't talk about intellectual topics with other people due to a desire to avoid arguments. They are more interested in peaceful social settings. My male friends, on average, tend to be more argumentative and so they enjoy talking about intellectual topics.

But I would say I know about equal ratios of male/female intellectuals, it just takes a while longer to find out the intellectual qualities of the females because they don't talk about it as much.

(Note: intellectual should not be interpreted as a synonym for intelligent here)

[–]kingoff00ls -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link