Gen Z Women Prefer Gay Men Over Straight Men

[Inliytened1]

29 minutes ago, yetineti said:

For anyone still following, I pushed LordFall because I take him seriously.

Respecting someone’s competence does not mean accepting their framework uncritically, and honest resistance is not an attack on their character.

I also wasn’t going to let a real disagreement be reduced to me being an unexceptional person with low ambition and standards, lol.

If someone is serious about truth, challenging a blind spot can be a form of respect, even when the exchange gets ugly. No hard feelings.

 

You emerged the ultimate victor. Let him regroup in the shadows.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

@Emerald
My attacks were missile specific, while he calls us unexceptional, dodges specifics, and claims he is the one with an exceptional life. 

How you read this conversation the way you did is beyond me.

Nobody is disputing LordFalls advice.

That does not change that it is unsolicited and being used to dodge actual questions.

Also, @Inliytened1 and I have got so heated, in a similar topic, that I at least discussed the conversation with Leo. We both have faults.

But the fact that we’re agreeing on this should say something.

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads.

But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like...

"What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made.

Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place.

It just made you guys look silly and unserious.

So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads.

But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like...

"What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made.

Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place.

It just made you guys look silly and unserious.

So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

I called him out and he lied.  He hasn't slept with 50 girls.

[Inliytened1]

@Emerald we just called him out on his bullshit  You know how you can spot a bullshit artist? Look in the mirror.

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[yetineti]

The drunk allegations may continue 😂

I think you’re just excited but I don’t know nothing

[yetineti]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads.

But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like...

"What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made.

Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place.

It just made you guys look silly and unserious.

So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

@Emerald

You’re right. If I’m accusing him of a pattern, the burden is on me to actually show it. And yes, “bleak, self-centered life” and “Ego, folks” were cheap shots. I don’t need to defend them.

Here is probably the cleanest example from this thread.

I wrote:

“That is the central problem. Every criticism becomes projection, cowardice or insufficient competence.”

His next response called my objections a “romanticization of mediocrity disguised as Zen philosophy,” said I must not like being competent, and contrasted his preferred women with an “Amish girl” or an “unambitious woman” who might suit me.

When I pointed out that he had just done exactly what I described, he responded by calling us Stage Green, bitter and passive-aggressive, suggested I was seeking validation and “weaselling out,” and later said my arguments came from a “victim mindset instead of agency and abundance.”

That is the pattern I meant. I questioned the tradeoffs within his framework, and the framework was repeatedly used to explain what must be deficient about me for questioning it. Whether he does that deliberately or sincerely believes those descriptions, it still replaces engagement with categorization.

My cheap shots did not prove my argument, and I’ll own that. But they also did not create the pattern, and his responses were not simply matter-of-fact rebuttals.

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

The drunk allegations may continue 😂

I think you’re just excited but I don’t know nothing

Weapons are down.  Light sabers safely tucked away.  I am still waiting for @Monster Energy to get in the ring.

[Inliytened1]

@LordFall you got 50? Well hot damn. 

[yetineti]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Weapons are down.  Light sabers safely tucked away.  I am still waiting for @Monster Energy to get in the ring.

Was I not supposed to be fighting with my Schwartz?

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

Was I not supposed to be fighting with my Schwartz?

Hilarious.  Looks like he's trying to hold his dick.

[yetineti]

@Inliytened1 Bro—have you never seen ‘Spaceballs,’ the Star Wars spoof?!

1987?! They’re coming out with a new one. It will probably suck. Enjoy the original while you can.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

@Inliytened1 Bro—have you never seen ‘Spaceballs,’ the Star Wars spoof?!

1987?! They’re coming out with a new one. It will probably suck. Enjoy the original while you can.

Thats one of the gems I missed. But now that you mentioned it I'm gonna go back and watch the one from 1987.

[yetineti]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Thats one of the gems I missed. But now that you mentioned it I'm gonna go back and watch the one from 1987.

Wow. I’m actually excited for you.

Assuming, you like slapstick parody and Mel Brooks.

It is stupid like ‘Dumb and Dumber’ is stupid. But also it is its own thing.

You have acted silly enough and mentioned Star Wars enough to make me think you’d get a kick out of it.

 

[yetineti]

Shhhhii—I might go watch it too. Everyone meet back here in two and a half with this to bond over.

[Joshe]

43 minutes ago, yetineti said:

His next response called my objections a “romanticization of mediocrity disguised as Zen philosophy,” said I must not like being competent, and contrasted his preferred women with an “Amish girl” or an “unambitious woman” who might suit me.

When I pointed out that he had just done exactly what I described, he responded by calling us Stage Green, bitter and passive-aggressive, suggested I was seeking validation and “weaselling out,” and later said my arguments came from a “victim mindset instead of agency and abundance.”

That is the pattern I meant. I questioned the tradeoffs within his framework, and the framework was repeatedly used to explain what must be deficient about me for questioning it. Whether he does that deliberately or sincerely believes those descriptions, it still replaces engagement with categorization.

Edited 2 hours ago by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

So, when you have a worldview or frame that acts to discount any falsifiability - the model is self sealing. Exchanges will then repeatedly function to discount the phenomenological information supplied by anyone - the frame is being used to reduce other people to NPC's. If you don't agree - you are "lower", "not conscious enough", "projecting", "need to do shadow work", "not sufficiently intellectually developed". Any objections to the framework are explained away. The model acquires a built-in defence against falsification. 

This is how you get stuck in paradigms.

It also has the rather nasty side effect of reducing the person down to some mechanism and can potentially induce a dehumanizing feeling in others (they are just NPC's the model explains, not real people with individual meaning, experience, values that genuinely differ).

What is worse - is when the model (or frame) is then used to pathologise some part of your view in a further attempt to reduce, discount and discard any genuine points being raised against it.

"Your argument is mistaken because your psychology is defective."

[Inliytened1]

50 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Wow. I’m actually excited for you.

Assuming, you like slapstick parody and Mel Brooks.

It is stupid like ‘Dumb and Dumber’ is stupid. But also it is its own thing.

You have acted silly enough and mentioned Star Wars enough to make me think you’d get a kick out of it.

 

Yeah honestly I don't know how i missed it.

[eos_nyxia]

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

When I pointed out that he had just done exactly what I described, he responded by calling us Stage Green, bitter and passive-aggressive, suggested I was seeking validation and “weaselling out,” and later said my arguments came from a “victim mindset instead of agency and abundance.”

This forum has had an issue with people weaponizing spiral dynamics for years. I don't think it's very constructive for anyone involved. 

[yetineti]

29 minutes ago, Joshe said:

 

6 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

So, when you have a worldview or frame that acts to discount any falsifiability - the model is self sealing. Exchanges will then repeatedly function to discount the phenomenological information supplied by anyone - the frame is being used to reduce other people to NPC's. If you don't agree - you are "lower", "not conscious enough", "projecting", "need to do shadow work", "not sufficiently intellectually developed". Any objections to the framework are explained away. The model acquires a built-in defence against falsification. 

This is how you get stuck in paradigms.

It also has the rather nasty side effect of reducing the person down to some mechanism and can potentially induce a dehumanizing feeling in others (they are just NPC's the model explains, not real people with individual meaning, experience, values that genuinely differ).

What is worse - is when the model (or frame) is then used to pathologise some part of your view in a further attempt to reduce, discount and discard any genuine points being raised against it.

"Your argument is mistaken because your psychology is defective."

@Joshe

“What if this is just fascination + identity + seriousness being inflated into universal importance?”

@Natasha Tori Maru

“Your argument is mistaken because your psychology is defective.”

Exactly. These two posts are why I held my ground.

Joshe names the inflation. Natasha names the mechanism.

Once someone’s fascination, identity and seriousness are inflated into universal importance, and the framework becomes self-sealing, ordinary disagreement stops working.

Every objection becomes further evidence that the person objecting is mediocre, projecting, victim-minded, Stage Green, insufficiently competent, or whatever else the model can absorb.

You are no longer being answered. You are being explained away.

That is where public prodding can have value. Not because a pile-on establishes truth, and not because I was trying to bait LordFall.

You name the mechanism, keep it in view, and let people watch it repeat until it becomes visible outside the framework.

I became too combative at points, and some of my insults weakened the presentation. I own that. But that explains why I should have communicated the pressure better, not why the pressure itself was unnecessary.

It is difficult not to react when the framework you are challenging is simultaneously being used to invalidate your perspective and characterize you as a person.

This also was not happening in a vacuum. LordFall has explicitly refused to acknowledge me in a previous exchange.

 

[Inliytened1]

@Natasha Tori Maru so how's the aussie tonight? 😉